Journal kiwimate's Journal: You say NT machines don't have uptime? Prove it! 4
Anyone who feels particularly bored and chooses to ramble through my postings sometime will see that I have a wee problem with MS-bashers without cause. Is NT or W2K perfect? Of course not. But to suggest they're impossible to configure to stay up is just plain ludicrous.
Whenever I read some poster suggesting this, I inevitably react with a biting reply. It really does annoy me, I'm afraid, not because these people should know better (the rather poor quality of most of these posts betrays that notion), but because they inevitably get modded up as +4 Informative or +5 Interesting when it's simply unsustainable nonsense.
There are machine shops who run NT 3.5 controllers that have uptimes counted in the years, not a paltry couple of months or so. But how about some hard figures? I currently have a NT 4.0 file server that is literally accessed 24 x 7 x 365 by several hundred people simultaneously, as well as running a licensing dongle for development software. As I write this morning -- 8 September 2003 -- the uptime is:
656 days, 11 hours, 42 minutes, 49 seconds
No, it's not on the Internet and therefore not vulnerable to attacks. Yes, I've performed some maintenance on it (had to change the IP addressing just a few weeks ago). Guess what -- despite popular opinion to the contrary, there are a number of maintenance operations which don't require reboots.
Now then...who wants to talk?
=================================
UPDATE 16 DECEMBER 2003
Yep, still going. Now at:
755 days, 20 hours, 38 minutes, 20 seconds
Not too terriby shabby, is it?
NT (Score:1)
However NT4 was a different story, as you know they made several changes to it so it would be more acceptable as a client os. I set up two of them for simple webservers and they had to be rebooted about once a week because they stopped working correctly after about 6-10 days. Pretty standard installs too, nothing out of the ordinary .