Roger Heflin wrote:
> I can't recall ever being in a position of "having to bring in new
> hardware". What scenario forces this issue on you? I haven't noticed
> a shortage of vendors who will sell RHEL supported boxes. But it
> sounds like you have an interesting job...
>
More cpu power needed to do the job. And the new boxes aren't
officially RHEL supported (and sometimes won't even boot with the latest
update-but will work with the latest
fedora/kernel.org).
Something faster than IBM could sell you?
I had a subset
of machines (about 250 machines) all of which had reached about 500+
days of uptime (the uptime counter rolled over)
Wasn't that fixed circa RH8? I had some 7.3 machines roll over twice.
The issue with all OSes is that no one tests enough to catch
these high MTBF issues, and in a big environment a machine crashing 1x
per every 1000 days of uptime, comes to 1 machine a day crashing because
of software, and typically the enterprise OSes aren't even close to that
level, and while fedora is worse, it is just not that much worse.
I don't think RH7.3 with its final updates or Centos3.x (where x>1) had
anything approaching a software crash per 1000 days - at least not in
the base system and common services. I mostly skipped the 4.x series
because I didn't trust the early 2.6 kernels at all, but 5.1 seems solid.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell(a)gmail.com