Xref: utzoo comp.unix.xenix:3025 comp.unix.microport:1327 Path: utzoo!lsuc!mnetor!utgpu!woods From: woods@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Greg Woods) Newsgroups: comp.unix.xenix,comp.unix.microport Subject: Re: Xenix reliability (Was: Re: Bell Tech 386 SysVr3) Summary: 30 days is nothing! Message-ID: <1988Aug8.201739.4868@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> Date: 9 Aug 88 00:17:39 GMT References: <25145@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <465@sp7040.UUCP> <11643@steinmetz.ge.com> <1988Jul30.141708.3175@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu> <152@ispi.U <5084@rpp386.UUCP> Reply-To: woods@gpu.utcs.Toronto.EDU (Greg Woods) Organization: G. A. W. Constulting Lines: 31 Checksum: 49078 In article <5084@rpp386.UUCP> jfh@rpp386.UUCP (The Beach Bum) writes: >In article <1498@ddsw1.UUCP> karl@ddsw1.UUCP (Karl Denninger) writes: >>In article <152@ispi.UUCP> jbayer@ispi.UUCP (id for use with uunet/usenet) writes: >>>In article <1988Jul30.141708.3175@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu>, woods@gpu.utcs.toronto.edu (Greg Woods) writes: >>>> >>>> Anyone who thinks Xenix is reliable has NEVER seen a truely reliable system. > >output of `stat' from crash on rpp386: > > sysname: XENIX > nodename: rpp386 > release: 2.2.1 > version: SysV > machine: i80386 > time of crash: Sat Aug 6 17:38:50 1988 > age of system: 31 days, 5 hrs., 27 mins. > >thirty one days looks like reliable to me. Not to me. Besides, how is that system used? I had Xenix 2.2.1 (286) stay up for 60 days, but that didn't impress me either. That system only did uucp, jove, and cc, etc. It didn't do a lot of database stuff, it didn't use IPC intensly, it didn't do high-speed communications. The only times I crashed it was with stupid stuff, like raw nroff output to the console, a hard disk error during swap, and doing something weird with IPC stuff. -- Greg Woods. UUCP: utgpu!woods, utgpu!{ontmoh, ontmoh!ixpierre}!woods VOICE: (416) 242-7572 [h] LOCATION: Toronto, Ontario, Canada