On Mar 3, 2005, at 10:34 PM, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
>
> I'm also highly interested in reliability, as are, I'm sure, Chris and 
> Manuel.
>
> I don't see 4.x as being the rock of reliability that you make it out 
> to
> be, however. I have a 4.x machine that crashes every few months or so
> even without high load. I also don't see Linux as unreliable. I have a 
> linux
> machine that is just as reliable as my production 4.x machine. The 
> uptimes
> are comparable.

As are 5.3 machines.  No really.

> I think what you have to realize is the incredible amount of complexity
> these OS's deal with, and also the incredible amount of complexity in
> hardware. I'm sure you could find configurations and hardware that 
> OpenBSD
> crashes on quite frequently.

One marginal DIMM will do it.

> I don't push a massive amount of traffic across my 4801 (maxed out T1),
> but mine is far from unreliable. Have you tried a different 4801?
> Production lines are fairly reliable usually, but they do produce bad
> batches from time to time.

(Do not feed the trolls.)