Windows Server Uptime... hmmm

[pr0c]

I was just thinking... there are several servers out., win2k in particular, that have claimed 2+ years of uptime.

Well a lot of service packs and other updates have been released since then obviously.. its windows duh. So i'm thinking either
1.) they are lying about the uptime or
2.) they are the most unsecure servers around

These updates require reboots no? And further thinking, as long as windows requires reboots for updates the uptime will never be even close to Unix/Linux's.

SO what do you guys think? Are they lying about there uptime or insecure?

(I consider lying updating then rebooting and considering that uptime, it obviously isn't)

[Raoul_Duke]

If i remember correctly........the boast about Win2K's uptime was indeed on a fully updated Server. So i think you may have a good point there.

Although, i could be wrong and just wasting a perfectly good post

[crokett]

The record for uptime that I have personally heard about was a tech support call I took a few years ago. A guy called in wanting to know where he could get updates for one of our older servers. It was running netware and stayed up for 4.5 years . His network techs knew it was on the network and performed regular maintenance and even used it as a file server for the tech dept, but no one could ever find it when they did inventories every 6 mos. They finaly did an office renovation and found it in what used to be a closet that had been walled off during the last renovation. Along with some other missing equipment apparently.

[pr0c]

hahaaha .. great stuff...


Further Research..

Service Pack 1 released August 1, 2000
Service Pack 2 released May ish, 2001
Service Pack 3 released August 1, 2002

Looks to me to the maximum uptime couldn't be more than a year, thats only if you used service packs and no other critical updates. (Any professional host sure the hell better have installed critical updates as they came out)

[Any]

Why do all servers need to be running with the latest updates?
If its working well, in a private network and well protected. Whats the point?

[bwkaz]

Originally posted by Any
Why do all servers need to be running with the latest updates?
If its working well, in a private network and well protected. Whats the point?

There is no point, if it's private and you trust all the users. However, the vast majority of machines running Windows XX Server are not private, and a lot of them that are are on networks where all the users aren't necessarily trustworthy. They're either open to the outside world, inviting attack, or open to any attacks made from less-than-scrupulous employees (or whatever).

[pr0c]

Originally posted by Any
Why do all servers need to be running with the latest updates?
If its working well, in a private network and well protected. Whats the point?

My point is people claiming years of uptime when and claiming to have the most up to date software...

[vbp6us]

Windows...uptime? Its obvious its bs. Windows cannot take all the hits and ****. Besides, as mentioned above service packs require rebooting.

Now linux...damn, YEARS AND YEARS. MY webserver could probably run for years straight.

[nextbillgates]

Individual Windows systems can't have a high uptime (at least not years on end) without missing critical patches. That's something you could get away with on workstations (and some servers, depending on the circumstances), but the security risk isn't worth uptime bragging rights.

The companies saying that they have years of uptime have Windows clusters, where you can take down individual machines and updates them without the cluster going down.