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