This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Top Five Reliable Providers
Related Links Top of the: day, week, month.
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
"Experience has proved that some people indeed know everything." -- Russell Baker
I'd agree, but (Score:5, Insightful)
So, congratulations should go out to the sys admins of those servers.
Re:I'd agree, but (Score:4, Funny)
Re:I'd agree, but (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I'd agree, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone who allows a machine to go more than 30 days without a reboot is asking for trouble. There is a reason why mainframers have a maintenance window every Sunday.
Re:I'd agree, but (Score:3, Informative)
I disagree. While 500 days is quite a few, there's no problem as long as you're diligent. Set up a script to do backups to another system on a regular basis (daily, weekly). I do incremental backups every workday at midnight using rsync. Which means if you mogrify a file, you have up to a week to get back an old copy. I used to have this go to a tape drive, and the tapes just had to be swapped out weekly. Now I jus
Re:I'd agree, but (Score:5, Insightful)
You're the admin. You're supposed to check for this. If the system isn't all that important, I may add patches without checking them on a test system, but if it's important, no patches get added until they are checked on a test system.
2) my fav, the disks stop spinning. This is lots of fun. Try it some time.
You're the admin. You're supposed to be doing backups. Personally, if I think there's a good chance that the drives will fail when I'm doing something ( eg: greater than .5 percent) I make 2 back ups. Tapes can break. Also, I've not seen disks refuse to spin up with out powering off for a while (more than 5 minues). Frequently, you can get the disks spinning again by (gently!) tapping them with a screwdriver. If that doesn't work, sometimes heating them with a lightbulb will work. Heatlamps work too, but you need to be careful not to overheat the drive. I also try to get drives on critical systems replaced every 2 to 3 years. RAID helps here.
Keeping the network, hardware, OS, and applications up is important, but just as important is abuse response. There are a few hosting companies out there that do a wonderful job of keeping things ticking over, but fail absolutely at terminating abusive accounts. Hosting at one of these sites is inviting having your email blocked at the very least. Some sites block all traffic based on what's in the block lists. Part of due dilligence is checking the history of a host by checking at SPEWS [spews.org], SPAMHAUS [spamhaus.org], SPAMCOP [spamcop.net], News.Admin.Net-Abuse.email [google.com], News.Admin.Net-Abuse.Sightings [google.com], and other customer's experiences.
I can't find my link to the dead tree report I use to check out hosting companies at the moment, but there are several very nice writeups out there that focus on choosing a good hosting/co-lo company.
Re:I'd agree, but (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, if the system is important to them, they should bestir themselves to learn how to make backups.
My biggest gripe about Novell and MS operating systems, and the Intell platform in general, is the inability to make a boot tape. BRU is able to make a boot disk that will allow a full restore from tape, but that function last I checked was only availble on (gag) SCO.
I want to throw a tape
Re:I'd agree, but (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah, but the realist (pesimist) admin will always hope for the best and plan for the worst. Critical machines/services need to have standby hardware. If I need to do a hw upgrade/software patch on a production machine, I'll make sure the standby machine is up to date and working before touching the main production machine. That way, If I I can't bring the machine back up in 10 mins, I'll know I have a Plan B machine.
Same goes for any other network equipment. I've seen "carrier class" switches that simply decide to go south upon removal of a hot-swappable module (going by the book).
amen to that (Score:2)
Not mirrored disks or incremental backups on tape
But a mirrored server so my downtime can be measured as the time it takes to swap the CAT5 cable from one machine to the other.
Thankfully I've never needed it but when the day comes I'll be ready.
Re:amen to that (Score:3, Informative)
Re:amen to that (Score:2)
Re:I'd agree, but (Score:2, Informative)
If one machine dieing brought down Google, they'd probably be constantly down with the number of machines they have. However, they have enough m
Re:I'd agree, but (Score:2)
I do agree that reboots will take care of the other things in your post, but it won't save drives.
Jason
Re:I'd agree, but (Score:2)
Re:I'd agree, but (Score:2)
If the disks on my server stop spinning, I know about it within 5 minutes. I have a daemon that touches a file on every physical spindle I have configured and if it doesn't read back the same data off the raw device then all hell breaks loose. SteelEye's Lifekeeper used to do something like this on our big UNIX clusters but it wasn't available for Linux when I wrote my version.
Anyway, there's ways to prevent all disaster scenarios... most of 'em usually discovered jus
Re:LIST DID NOT INCLUDE UPTIMES, JERKOFF (Score:2)
This wasn't even a good troll. You need to go back to the Troll Academy.
Re:LIST DID NOT INCLUDE UPTIMES, JERKOFF (Score:2)
See comment above yours for good trolling tactics. Re-trolling is tops in my book.
Re:I'd agree, but (Score:2)
The end-user's experience is also much more likely to be influenced by how good their ISP is. Does their ISP drop the connection on long downloads? Does their ISP's modem bank get swamped in the early evening?
Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:5, Informative)
What would be intriguing were if Windows had nabbed the top 5 spots...
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:1)
If you look at the chart, 2 of the top 5 ARE running Windows 2000.
What chart are you looking at???Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:1)
It is updated every 15 minutes, and the screenshot is dated.
Corrected URL (Score:1)
For the data referenced in the original post, try http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/reports/performan
Bzzt (Score:5, Interesting)
In any case, I'm a bit skeptical of the data. They seem to be monitoring the providers' own websites, not their clients' machines or sites. For example, the 24 hour chart shows Interland listed as Win2K... That may be true of www.interland.com, but most of the Interland clients I know are either running dedicated *nix boxen, or running off Solaris virtual hosting accounts at Interland's Communitech branch.
Regardless, I certainly wouldn't rank a host based on their ability to keep their site up. Most if not all of them serve their corporate site from a server unrelated to their clients, and the site (and server itself) are rarely messed with. This is especially true with shared/dedicated hosts.
Re:Bzzt (Score:2)
That is totally true, and I'm skeptical also. They have Rackshack listed as NT/98, but in fact they offer servers of all sorts. My site is hosted on a RH Linux machine not Windows. Just because Rackshack's main site goes out doesn't mean any clients did (which I know for a fact has happened because once I couldn't get to the main site but my site worked fine).
Detailed chart for June (Score:2)
The top-10 ranked servers look like this:
FreeBSD (x5)
Linux
Solaris 8
Windows 2K
Solaris 8
Windows 2k
Though FWIW, I agree with many of your reservations about drawing too many conclusions from these data.
Re:Bzzt (Score:2)
I was hosting my cheapo sites at Featureprice.com for 8 months or so before service started to suck. When my sites had been down for more than a day I moved. The featureprice.com site never went down though, and as far as I know they never used their own servers to host their own site! They are by far the most popular topic of yourhostsucks.com and I still go there to read up on their comedy of errors which include;
* continued downtimes for some customers as much as WEEKS
* sett
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:2, Interesting)
I think it is more the admins, rather than the OS's.
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:4, Informative)
I am suprised AIX didn't show up in the top five I must admit
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:5, Insightful)
Are there hosting providers using AIX in their hosting environments? I would think that RS6000s would be just too expensive in comparison to blades or generic 1 or 2U x86s for hosting environments.
I'm sure there's some popularity in ASP environments where you're providing an entire application (interface, DB, logic, etc), but for basic hosting it sounds like it'd be unaffordable to use RS6000.
AIX for web hosting (Score:5, Insightful)
I worked at a major telco ISP that used AIX. In fact, not only were the web services hosted on AIX, but they were hosted on a RS/6000 SP2 parallel supercomputer.
This sounds like overkill, and in some ways, it is... but the SP2 is, in essence, a very fancy rack. Each SP2 frame has a number of nodes in it; each node is a self-contained RS/6000 system. The major difference in an SP2 node is that it has a SP Switch connection. The SP Switch is a very high speed switch fabric that allows the nodes to communicate. Combined with heavy-duty software and fault-tolerant design, you wind up with a parallel supercomputer...
...or one heck of a rack system that lets you run the nodes as individual servers, or in clusters, with lots of bandwidth and control.
For a service provider that wants to lure people in with a low starting cost, and hope that turnover from downtime isn't too bad, AIX can be expensive. I used to dislike AIX, because of its reputation as "not quite UNIX." Once I had the opportunity to use it, I found that it really is well suited to many ISP tasks. AIX has inherited a lot of attitude from IBM's mainframe days. IBM's mainframes were used in "can't go down" environments. AIX has many features that share that design philosophy.
As for the cost... as with any major manufacturer system, there's the published cost, and there's the cost you negotiate. If you are buying a whole setup, you can usually cut a deal. Of course, if you're buying major manufacturer equipment, you're already committed to paying more than you would for a white-box open source system, presumably because you want advanced features that haven't made it into OSS yet, or you want support.
(I've found that IBM's AIX support kicks ass. When I'd call Sun, even with a Platinum contract, I'd usually get someone who'd do the same SunSolve search I already tried, then promise to get back to me some day. Calling IBM gets results... they will put as many people into conference as they have to in order to get enough subject-area experts talking to figure out the problem and resolve it, preferably on the same call. A far cry from "RTFM and then post to the mailing list!")
The only ISP task that I found AIX had trouble supporting was INN. At least at the time I was working with it, AIX had resource limitations that caused trouble for very large INN installations. (This ISP was working with a two terabyte news spool.)
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:5, Informative)
I'd like it fixed so it can stopped being used as an excuse.
Or you could read the article and find it has nothing to do with anyone's uptime clock, it's by failed req% in the month of June, but that would be too hard.
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:2)
The mods are on crack again.
It's not really very informative either, I just happened to read the linked article and look at some chart there, what's insightful these days? realizing that in most cases two plus two does in fact actually equal four?
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:2)
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:2)
I don't use Linux (I've got FreeBSD on my servers and firewall, and Windows on my desktop, it works for me, it may not be your cake), nor am I a real programmer(I can do some stuff, and I understand the basics, but I don't really put anything into practice).
Come on people how hard can it be, this has been a known problem for quite some time. I fully realize it is not a major problem, but if you're not willing to fix it, then at least stop using it as an excuse.
Of course I could be
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:2, Informative)
Wrong! From the Netcraft page [netcraft.com]:
Which operating systems provide uptime information ?
Operating systems we can usually work out uptimes for are:
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:2)
1) Someone remarks that FreeBSD and BSD/OS dominate the Netcraft uptime rankings.
2) Linux advocate offers the excuse "but the uptime counter thingy rolls over after 497 days, so the Netcraft rankings are not fair."
If you look at this thread from the beginning, you'll see that eht wasn't bitching about the Netcraft rankings, but bitching about the people bitching about Netcraft rankings. And if you had bothered reading his da
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:2)
I think one thing that could possibly fix this is by giving almost everyone mod points.
Then again I think the us congress might possibly be fixed by having 100 times as many seats, can you imagine the RIAA/MPAA/Microsoft/Bad Guy of Whoever's Choice trying to bribe that many people, you'd get yahoos from the right, yahoos from the left and enough moderates to actually get the will of the people done.
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:2)
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:3, Interesting)
Honestly not a troll or anything, just curious and I figure I can get an accurate answer from someone like Alan Cox...
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Before the *BSD is Dying trolls start... (Score:4, Funny)
As usual, slashdotters aren't reading the article.
The article says that BSD-based services are very reliable, and tend to not die. And it is a Netcraft article, so...
Netcraft confirms: *BSD is not dying.
Hmmm... (Score:5, Funny)
I don't know, I think http://localhost/ [localhost] is the fastest, most reliable of them all instead. Shit content though...
Re:Hmmm... Localhost... which one? (Score:4, Funny)
I clicked on the localhost link just for the heck of it, since I had forgotten which project was running on my laptop's Apache server...
And MozillaFirebird helpfully took me to:
http://www.localhost.net.au/ [localhost.net.au]
Ghosts in the machine, I swear.
What about... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What about... (Score:2, Interesting)
Netcraft has all sorts of interesting data to dig through. But no place just too look for a total list of OS hosts. Also sort of neat to see what domains interest people the most. (Like #5 linuxsucks.org running on Linux)
Win2k (Score:2, Informative)
I hate MS, but man, Win2k is a great operating system.
Re:Win2k (Score:2)
Hmm, no, actually looking at that page I see it doesn't say whether Apache is running on BSD or Linux, so it's more like 12 IIS vs. 38 Apache (assuming that's what the other providers are running.) That would leave Windows somewhat underrepresented, but you gotta admit, that's
Re:Win2k (Score:2)
Re:Win2k (Score:5, Funny)
Do not worry. If using Win98 as a production hosting server, they would be too busy problem solving to have time to breed!
Fasr? Reliable? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Fasr? Reliable? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Fasr? Reliable? (Score:3, Funny)
No wonder Netcraft is dying...
While we're on Netcraft... (Score:3, Funny)
BSD (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm a happy {Free|Open}BSD user after switching from Linux about 4 years ago. I haven't had to monkey with Alice's patches to Bob's kernel mods to run Charles' software since. This isn't a Linux slam but with the BSD family, once you have a stable system it just runs until the hardware dies. In fact I only reboot my OpenBSD boxes when there is a security hole (you know how often that is!) or big upgrade to the kernel/OS that I want, not just the Kernel du Jour.
Re:BSD (Score:4, Informative)
Re:BSD (Score:2)
Re:BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
I personally don't know many real Linux production servers (as opposed to bobs personal box) where the admins mess with kernel patches - ever. They normally use a stable distro, normally Debian or one of the older Red Hats, and just leave it.
Re:BSD (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we do. They can't even go 7 years without a root hole in the default install. Pathetic ;)
The thing that made me switch to *BSD, however, was not the security or the stability. It was the documentation. Nowhere else have I found such a wealth of (well written) documentation as I discovered on installing FreeBSD.
Re:BSD (Score:2)
Already slashdotted... (Score:4, Funny)
OS is a commodity (Score:5, Interesting)
To me this suggests that they are all capable, and the differences come from somewhere else, the setup and administration.
Machine footprint (Score:5, Funny)
Newsflash in not so far future: "IIS down 5% Dreamcast up 15%"
Wanna see something REALLY funny on Netcraft... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Wanna see something REALLY funny on Netcraft... (Score:2)
top 50 are typical (Score:5, Interesting)
20% FreeBSD
26% Windows (NT and 2000)
30% Linux
22% Solaris
2% HP-UX
This is fairly close to the overall distribution of servers. It usually works out to about the same numbers. Currently, Apache is at 63 percent and IIS is at 26%. Which would be about right if all of the Windows boxes are running IIS and most of the unix variants are running Apache.
So the news appears to be that the top 50 most reliable providers are, generally speaking, reflective of the whole of all providers. Which means that it isn't just the server os that makes a hosting company reliable, it's the hardware and the techs. There's no magic bullet for uptime. You can't categorically say that one os is the absolute best. You have to include the technical skills of the admins in the equation.[1]
[1] You *might* be able to state that free/open source software is more easily secured, but I suspect that the admins running those 25 bsd/linux sites would tell you that their skills made a difference in their uptime.
You missed the point (Score:4, Insightful)
A summary showing the ten providers whose sites experienced the fewest failed requests and the fasest connection times during June
So this one is about performance, not uptime.
So the fact that Freebsd tops out on performance *and* uptimes is pretty amazing. What I will give you that you are correct about, is the performance is highly dependent on the hardware and the skill of the techs. Uptime is not everything for sure.
"There's no magic bullet for uptime." Well if it *is* uptime you're looking for, the closest to a magic bullet you can get is FreeBSD or BSD/OS. 5 years is a damn long time.
essentially the top 50 uptimes ever, is fully dominated by BSD
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.last.html
This is not surprising. (Score:5, Interesting)
FreeBSD comes from an academic background and has much more high-profile users than any other system.
Even the very stable Linux system is dominated by hobbyists. The default installations of non-*BSD system are usually feature laden and sometimes broken. And note that stability of the kernel is not the only issue. If you fuck your configuration then you are fucked for good. It's a common misconception that a stable kernel leads to a stable system.
So, the pros and PhDs tend to use FreeBSD, not only for the above mentioned issues but also due to the clean design, tight codebase and modern algorithms. Note that e.g. FreeBSD was the first system with O(log(n)^2) swapping. This gives a double advantage: you get a stable system with a high-profile userbase. That's why we will always see FreeBSD on the top.
Re:This is not surprising. (Score:5, Insightful)
FreeBSD seems like somebody paid more attention to the components, and a good number are unique to FreeBSD and not GNU parts. Even the contrib aspects of FreeBSD (gcc, sendmail, etc) are well integrated and not just bolted on.
Re:This is not surprising. (Score:2)
It's too bad someone has not made the effort (AFAIK) to create the same type of integrated, stable, tight desktop environment on *BSD. On the server BSD is pretty good(*), but on the desktop it's a complete wash. It's worse than Linux because it's basically the same thing Linux has (GNOME, KDE, or whatever) except missing some really great software (nVidia lags behind with their BSD drivers and the only VMware you can run is 2.x).
(*) Only pretty good because I find BSD to be a big PITA w
Re:This is not surprising. (Score:2)
I like the make buildworld, make installworld stuff, because once I've synchronized source, and rebuilt world and kernel, I can be pretty certain that my system is in a reasonably consistent state. If anything goes wrong with the FreeBSD part (not my apps), I can easily describe to others what my system is. e.g. 4.8-RELEASE, and if I did a fair amount of tweaking/changes-
rant mad libs.... (Score:2, Funny)
Let me save everyone some time...
"[name of host I use/used to use] should not have been in the top [number 50 or less]! I used them for [length of time] and I had [random number] problems over a [1-12] month time span! They are TOTALY incompetent and I wouldn't wish them upon my neighbor's dog's fire hydrant!"
Liars!! (Score:5, Interesting)
# www.nyi.net - FreeBSD
ok
# www.about.com - FreeBSD
ok
# www.nac.net - Windows 2000
ok
# www.interland.net - Windows 2000
LIAR!!
nmap -O www.interland.net gives
TCP/IP fingerprint:
SInfo(V=3.00%P=i686-pc-linux-gnu%D=
# www.inetu.net - FreeBSD
ok
# www.jumpline.com - Linux
ok
# www.myhosting.com - Windows 2000
LIAR!!
nmap -O www.myhosting.com gives
Remote operating system guess: AIX 4.3.2.0-4.3.3.0 on an IBM RS/*
# www.expresstech.com - Windows 2000
ok
# www.hostopia.com - Linux
ok
# www.verio.com - Solaris
ok
There's something rotten in Netcraft kingdom!
Re:Liars!! (Score:5, Informative)
Nmap, on the other hand, detects the OS based on the random-number sequence generation of TCP packets.
How does this affect things? Well, if you have a load balancer or firewall that forwards the HTTP connection to another webserver somewhere, then nmap will return the OS of the firewall or load balancer, whereas netcraft will return the OS of the final webserver.
Re:Liars!! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Liars!! (Score:2)
nmap -O -p80 -v www.interland.net
Starting nmap V. 2.54BETA31 ( www.insecure.org/nmap/ )
No tcp,udp, or ICMP scantype specified, assuming vanilla tcp connect() scan. Use -sP if you really don't want to portscan (and just want to see what hosts are up).
Host (64.226.3.126) appears to be up
Initiating Connect() Scan against (64.226.3.126)
Adding open port 80/tcp
The Connect() Scan took 1 second to scan 1 ports.
Warning: OS detection will be MUCH less reliable because we
Re:erm erm ... (Score:2)
# Host Setting
# ============
#
# If you are using a Pentium Pro or greater processor, leave this line as-is;
# otherwise, change to i586, i486 or i386 as appropriate. All modern systems
# (even Athlons) should use "i686-pc-linux-gnu"
#
CHOST="i686-pc-linux-gnu"
Linux beats Win2k by TWO! (Score:2)
its been /.'ed (Score:3, Funny)
Mirror (Score:2)
Looking at the whole 50 (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are the 3 OSen which comprise the top 10, which has 5 fbsd, 2 Solaris 8, 2 Win2k, and 1 linux.
Totals for the top 50 are 10 Freebsd, 15 linux, 8 Solaris 8s, 2 'Solaris', 12 Win2k, 1 NT4/Win98 box admin'ed by a crack smoking monkey, and a lone HP-UX. (I know missed one somewhere, but screw it...I'm not recounting.)
Now, what does this tell us? There are FreeBSD users at the top and bottom. Same for Solaris 8 and Win2k. Linux too. OS doesn't really seem to be much of a factor. Hardware and network reliability I would expect to be more relevant.
My conclusion? The people who chose these things, along with the OS, and setup and maintain them, to land themselves in the top 5 must have made better decisions than the rest. That the people who chose the most reliable hardware and networks also chose FreeBSD...well, it only goes to show.
Re:Looking at the whole 50 (Score:5, Funny)
That's not true.
Operating system has nothing to do w/ reliability (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sure that even a Win95 based ISP can provide a very reliable service. It's only a matter of redundancy.
On the other hand, the company I'm working for runs FreeBSD on its web and mail servers, but thanks to the dumb way things are installed and the lack of redundancy, a global uptime of 24 hours would be an all-time record.
With no possible single point of failure, with load balancers and correct usage of protocols like HSRP, service can be guaranteed even if some servers are continously crashing.
Have you ever seen Google unreachable? I've always seen it up. Although Google runs Linux. But they have properly designed their network for high availability. In an old Slashdot article, there was an interview of a Google techie who explained that if 1, 2 or 100 servers were down, it would have absolutely no impact on the service.
So at least for ISPs, I really think what matters is the skills of the network administrators. It brings another question : does the skills actually depends on the operating system they use?
Maybe. At least when you read mailing-lists of different operating systems, you can clearly see some common interests of the related subscribers. _This_ is really what makes differences between free operating systems. When it comes to reliability for traditional ISP services, either OpenBSD, Linux, FreeBSD or even Win2000 are quite comparable nowadays.
Is this showing which providers are reliable? (Score:2)
It also means that the whole 'the most reliable sites' use *bsd thing is kind of silly. Most of the top 10 websites of providers use *bsd. Hardly means that most of the servers @ the provider use *bsd. I know that I have linux servers @ rackspace and NYI.
That's great, but what about...... (Score:2)
What is with all the (Score:2, Insightful)
It is like there are people being paid to spam this site with anti-BSD.
*BSD is still being worked on, is very stable/secure, and is used proffesionaly. So quit with the propoganda.
Too Close to Call (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because some provider responds to a DNS or web query 1ms faster than the next guy doesn't mean they are a more reliable provider. Maybe they just have fewer customers and, thus, a little bit smaller DNS database or more room to 'spread out' the users between different machines. I know netcraft monitors from various geographical and network-isolated locations on the Internet, but the law of averages doesn't help them much here. Say they monitor from 100 hosts and one of those 100 hosts has a "connection reset by peer" type TCP (RST) error due to a local router (ie not the provider's problem) doing a DNS query and it logs a time of 100ms instead of 15ms and one failed attempt? It might not happen to the other guy's host monitored even 200ms later.
Netcraft would have to be monitoring from very large numbers of machines (100,000+) to even come close to being able to tell the difference between these networks from outside. I have a feeling most all of them on the list are very good and reliable, and aside from uptime, reliability means more than the response time of your DNS or web servers. No matter what OS or network gear you use, when you introduce redundancy and failover, you necessarily introduce more equipment and more complexity that will slow things down an inconsequential amount at the gain of another '9' or whatnot.
Anyway, the point is, don't take the order of this list too seriously. The fact that any company is on the list means they have made a serious effort to provide a good and reliable network.
~GoRK
Re:Too Close to Call (Score:3, Interesting)
More like network performance (Score:2)
These are important metrics, to be sure, and I'm sure the OS used plays some small role, but I would imagine the network topology and the quality of the peering arrangements are much more significant factors here.
-h3
Hardware, anyone ? (Score:2, Interesting)
Yet, there is that embarrassing all-BSD top five. Tho I don't know how BSD or any OS can be of any help when you lose your storage subsystem.
OS & hosting?? (Score:2)
Re:Top 50 (Score:1, Offtopic)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:My trials with *BSD (Score:2)
What faster chip architecture? It runs on x86 and various other architectures.
Re:My trials with *BSD (Score:2)
Re:My trials with *BSD (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
No particular order (Score:4, Informative)
The top 40+ have no failed requests, and it is just minor differences in response times, and it isn't overly clear if they are even sorted by that.