All Things Microsoft > Microsoft Software
XP Vs Linux in stability.. (DUN DUN DUN)
Zombie9920:
quote:Originally posted by The_Muffin_Man/ Dustin /B0b:
The longest I could keep a WinXP Pro computer running Apache 2.0.36 running was 3 days (tweaked) and 2 days (untweaked) (In a little while, I'll break four, this is my 7th run). It crashed HARD on the end of the last run, everthing locked up solid, and I have no clue why...it's never done that before. The server really isn't being used, so when it does get hammered in a few weeks we'll see how long it lasts.
As for Linux running Apache 2.0.36, the longest I ever had it running (tweaked) was about 3 months. Then I decided to install XP for testing purposes, and that's the only reason I stopped it. This thing under Linux (Red Hat) was brutalized. I ran Quake III (w/decent frame rates, mind you) while 5-10 people were downloading 100+ MB files. Good shit :D
I'm not bashing XP, I'm stating fact. If XP runs more than 4, or even to 90 days, I would have no problem stating that fact. Right now it is my production server, so it should be interesting to see what happens.
BTW: This is a totally different computer than the one I posted in the hardware discussion. In case you wanted to know:
AMD Athlon Classic 750 MHz
EP7KXA Mobo (Slot A)
1536 MB RAM 3x PC-133 Chips
2x(HW-Mirrored) 120 GB HDDs (I just added these)
GeForce 2 MX (Also just added)
24x10x40 CD Burner (Just added)
Floppy Drive
Tiny ass n' silent case
Video, Mouse & Keyboard over a KVM switch
Partitions:
Red Hat Linux - Updated to 7.3 (10 GB incl. Swap)
Windows XP Pro - All Updates (10 GB)
File storage space (100 GB)
-Dustin
--- End quote ---
If you want top notch stability and reliability from Windows you really should try running the server on a system with an Intel CPU and Intel chipset. Your system may have hard locked from a Via chipset bug(the Via 686A and 686B based chipsets are plauged with lots o' bugs) or perhaps maybe your CPU overheated(Athlons do have heat issues...heat=bad for stablity). I have an Athlon XP 1600+ on a KT133A(686B) chipset motherboard and I can't get Windows to run reliably for any longer than 5 days without rebooting. For some reason on my Athlon box it will run nice and fast at first but it's performance diminishes to almost pentium classic speeds unless I periodically reboot.
The system that I had the 7 1/2 month uptime and now almost 2month uptime on is a 1.7ghz P4 o/ced to almost 2.1ghz on I850 chipset.
My 2.53ghz P4 northwood on I850E chipset box has been up for a little over 2 months now. I don't even bother with leaving the Athlon box running when I'm not using it(I hardley even use it..I mainly use my Northwood box anymore :D ) and I always leave my 2 P4 systems running.
Basically, if you have better quality(I know it is more expensive but you get what you pay for) hardware you will get a better experience out of your system(no matter what OS you use really)).
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
voidmain:
So now you are telling me I must run Intel processors to get good reliability out of Windows? Thanks for the advice, guess I'll be sticking with Linux as it does not discriminate. It runs great on both Intel *and* AMD.
--- Code: ---
--- End code ---
Zombie9920:
--- Code: ---
--- End code ---
[/qb]<hr></blockquote>
Windows runs good on Athlons and Durons for a few days without a reboot but you do need to periodically reboot Windows on AMD boxes. If you don't reboot the system will start getting noticabley slower and slower and slower until you reboot(You regain speed after rebooting though). I'm speaking from my experiences with my AMD box and a few friends AMD boxes..some people may have better luck with Windows and AMD boxes.
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: Zombie9920 ]
voidmain:
quote:Originally posted by Zombie9920:
Windows runs good on Athlons and Durons for a few days without a reboot but you do need to periodically reboot Windows on AMD boxes. If you don't reboot the system will start getting noticabley slower and slower and slower until you reboot(You regain speed after rebooting though). I'm speaking from my experiences with my AMD box and a few friends AMD boxes..some people may have better luck with Windows and AMD boxes.
--- End quote ---
Well that would just plain be unacceptable in my book. And if I would have bought a copy of XP and had this kind of eXPerience I would surely have demanded my money back.
rtgwbmsr:
quote:Originally posted by VoidMain:
So now you are telling me I must run Intel processors to get good reliability out of Windows? Thanks for the advice, guess I'll be sticking with Linux as it does not discriminate. It runs great on both Intel *and* AMD.
--- End quote ---
Zombie9920, you are right, Win and intel are great together...that's why the word Wintel coined. I have to agree with VoidMain because I can't afford to blow off another $400-$700 on parts just cuz it's "intel", and then spend even more on an OS that works better with it than other low cost components. It's not worth it in a file server. The only requirement I have is that it runs. On my PC though, it would be different.
AMD is cheaper, and Linux is free...one of the reasons I converted. I am telling you this as a person with an ever-shrinking bank account, not as a "Linux Zombie/Slave to Tux(I like this one...couldn't you just imagine Britney S. singing "I'm a sllaaaavvveee to Tux..." lol!)".
-Dustin
[ September 04, 2002: Message edited by: The_Muffin_Man/ Dustin /B0b ]
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version