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
> I don't see 4.x as being the rock of reliability that you make it out
> 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
> machine that is just as reliable as my production 4.x machine. The
> 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
> 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.)