Re: uptime

[dman <dsh8290@rit.edu>]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 02:38:55PM -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
| * Rino Mardo (rmardo@yahoo.com) spake thusly:
| > On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 01:45:41PM -0500 or thereabouts, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
| > > * Craig Dickson (crdic@yahoo.com) spake thusly:
| > > > will trillich wrote:
| > > > 
| > > > > $ uptime
| > > > >  12:44am  up 365 days,  1:31,  2 users,  load average: 0.10, 0.03, 0.01
| > > > > 
| > > > > break out the root beer!
| > > > 
| > > > Congrats! I think I'll show this to a few Windows users. 
| > > 
| > > Hmm. We had an NT swerver with about 8 months uptime at work[n - 1].
| > > The only reson it got rebooted was because we bought a rack and had
| > > to switch the fscker off to put it in there. So it's not the OS, it's
| > > how you use it...
| > > 
| > so you mean you've never used your nt server at all hence the
| > unbelievable uptime?  don't get me wrong here i just can't believe the
| > figures
| 
| We didn't run luser apps on it, except Access (well, DAO, actually). Other 
| than that it was serving files 24/7. And it was NT _server_, not WS.

The difference bewteen server and workstation is a couple registry
keys and the price tag.  :-)

-D