Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@schestowitz.com> wrote in
dc5f8o$2bn9$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk:">news:dc5f8o$2bn9$1@godfrey.mcc.ac.uk:
> 5 years with no downtime whatsoever is unrealistic. No matter where
> you are, there tend to be accidental power shortages or network
> cut-offs. Tamlyn would know that a main wire was cut off by a builder
> last year in Manchester. Then there's the issue of reboot, which might
> result in a downtime of a few minutes. Even though my host is up over
> 99.9% of the time, I can still observe these reboots on occasions.
> They claim to have had 100% uptime for a year, but it's based on
> sampling, which I know reflects badly on the truth.
True. I meant to add something along the line of 99.9%
The systems Im thinking of have had power-burps which put them out only for
the time of a bootup, purposefuly reboots due to the admin installing
something which required it, and sometimes a period where a service was out
while someone messed with it which some people would call downtime even if
2 dozen other services were still running.
But I was gearing it toward the level of server that he seemed to be
considering. Such a comparison to higher grade professional services is
usually done by people running such services. Rather like mentioning to a
professional mechanic that you work on your own cars. :)
Gandalf Parker
|
|
