Home > Rumors > Windows Update Servers Score 100% Uptime

Windows Update Servers Score 100% Uptime

  Submitted by Caffeine Deprived Rumors 82 Comments

Microsoft’s Windows beat operating system rivals Mac OS X and Ubuntu in a three-month test of update server uptime, according to Pingdom, a Swedish uptime monitoring company.

About The Author

David Adams

Follow me on Twitter @david_adams

82 Comments

  1. 2008-07-17 6:29 am
    Kwitschibo

    What’s the point?

    Edited 2008-07-17 06:30 UTC

    • 2008-07-17 7:03 am
      Jokel

      The point is that using Ubuntu you have a 1.4% risk you have to wait longer than 10 full endless minutes to get your updates if you are only using two specific mirrors. That’s very, very, very, very, very, very bad!!!! You can’t use Linux because it’s totally unreliable!!! Use only Windows, because Windows is allway’s reliable and up-to-date and….. ehh, wait a moment here…

      It sounds a bit strange to me they choose only one populair distro to measure the (implied) reliability of the complete Linux range. Canonical is big, but not that big. How about RedHat? Would they be a bit more reliable, just because they have more physical servers available? What about Linux from Novell (Opensuse, SUSE Linux Enterprise)? They have far more update servers available than Canonical. What about Debian? Etct. etc.

      Do they really need something like this to put Windows in a better daylight? If that is the case Linux must be gaining more momentum than I was thinking. On the other hand – Microsoft is a company that wont accept any competition at all. They are willing to throw in billions of dollars amd lots of “payed research”, just to stamp out something that is threathning to gain more than 0,000001% of their market share. Linux must be a total nightmare for them by now…

      • 2008-07-17 11:34 am
        Stephen!

        you have to wait longer than 10 full endless minutes to get your updates

        Oh well, patience is a virtue, as they say ….

      • 2008-07-17 1:36 pm
        TaterSalad

        Yeah because Microsoft COULDN’T POSSIBLY make a good server OS that would stay up 100% of the time for 3 months?

        • 2008-07-17 2:24 pm
          systyrant

          Of course Microsoft can make a server that can stay running for three contiguous months. Server 2003 is a pretty good server OS. I’m sure 2008 is a good one as well.

          The reality is that Ubuntu and Apple servers aren’t down enough for anybody to really notice. It’s truly a pointless article.

          Now if Ubuntu or Apple servers were down 25% or more this article would have some relevance since the end user might actually notice the down time.

        • 2008-07-17 2:30 pm
          ashyanbhog

          Netcraft “what’s that site running” shows http://www.update.microsoft.com was rebooted one day ago. Average uptime is shown as 23days and max uptime of about 30 days

          http://www.update.microsoft.com“ rel=”nofollow”>http://toolbar.netcraft.com/site_report?url=

  • 2008-07-17 2:56 pm
    BluenoseJake

    I’m sure Windows update runs on more than just one server, that was the report from the particular box (out of many) that netcraft got sent to.

  • 2008-07-17 3:19 pm
    helf

    Uptime measurement is pointless.

    Having vast uptimes means one of two things.

    1. You are an idiot that never updates.

    2. You are running a cluster so you just migrate processes around and reboot servers as needed.

    uptime scores = penis size

  • 2008-07-18 2:52 pm
    iserlohn

    If only there were operating systems that can update most portions of the OS and applications without a full reboot of the system… hum…

  • 2008-07-17 7:29 am
    risbac

    The point? I give you the point: this company is just being clever and getting a very popular promotion campaign for 0€. The recipe is simple:

    -find a topic comparing products/systems with big communities easy to upset (in this case, OS, Windows/OSX/Linux)

    -publish some data related to your activity and showing an advantage for one of the competitors, it does not matter which one, or if this study is reliable or not.

    -wait for the flame war to begin and to spread on the internet in a couple of days.

    That’s it, Pingdom just used its own service to get a fantastic promotional campaign. They just pinged 3 servers during 3 months, and the result does not even matter, as long as it shows a difference between the competitors. Honestly, we should NOT EVEN talk about this, it’s exactly what they are looking for. Pointless. Yet successfull, so congrats to them I guess!

    • 2008-07-17 7:43 am
      kaiwai

      Interesting – its funny that within a few minutes of your post and my post, our posts have been moderated down. Oxygen thieves from the said company moderated down people who think that their company is worthless.

  • 2008-07-17 7:58 pm
    netpython

    The point is in my opinion that Ubuntu has more update servers worldwide. For me archive.nl.ubuntu.com might be faster and has a higher availabilty then update.microsoft.com .

  • 2008-07-17 6:37 am
    IvoLimmen

    According to Pingdom, Microsoft’s update servers were available to users 100 per cent of the time during the three-month stretch of April, May and June, with no apparent down time. Apple’s update servers, meanwhile, were offline for 2 hours and 34 minutes during that period (99.9 per cent uptime) while the main repository of Ubuntu, one of the most popular consumer distributions of Linux, was dark for 1 day, 5 hours and 45 minutes (98.6 per cent uptime).

    That’s not really strange, as with Windows you actually require a good working update service because of the stability of the OS, this is less for Apple and even more so for Ubuntu (Linux).

    The stats just prove it ;)

    • 2008-07-17 3:33 pm
      theteam

      According to Pingdom, Microsoft’s update servers were available to users 100 per cent of the time during the three-month stretch of April, May and June, with no apparent down time. Apple’s update servers, meanwhile, were offline for 2 hours and 34 minutes during that period (99.9 per cent uptime) while the main repository of Ubuntu, one of the most popular consumer distributions of Linux, was dark for 1 day, 5 hours and 45 minutes (98.6 per cent uptime).

      That’s not really strange, as with Windows you actually require a good working update service because of the stability of the OS, this is less for Apple and even more so for Ubuntu (Linux).

      The stats just prove it ;)

      You all damn him, but you do not see the fine irony in his words. Of course Microsoft has to have a good working update service because of the stability of Windows… just realize if it is due to the GOOD or the BAD stability of any OS that it requires the update servers to be stadily available. 😉

  • 2008-07-17 6:40 am
    Warnaud

    It’s so great to have Microsoft Partners all around the globe! You can have daily trolls about anything. Thanks again Microsoft Marketing Department for this almighty demonstration. Tomorrow: “According to ****** Vista is the best OS ever !!”

    • 2008-07-17 1:40 pm
      TaterSalad

      How is that different from say… linux trolls around the globe doing the same thing? Or are you just upset because this article favors Microsoft and not linux?

      • 2008-07-17 1:46 pm
        Warnaud

        Just because it’s paid results, that don’t rely on anything interesting. It’s only free advertising (troll) on Microsoft reinventing the wheel and claiming their solution is better.

        • 2008-07-17 2:00 pm
          TaterSalad

          Are you really that naive to call PC World/IDC and Pingdom a group of Microsoft trolls? Where is the paid result? Where is the transaction? Just because it didn’t say linux rules doesn’t mean there is no truth to this. Now stop being an ass about it because it didn’t put linux in the good light.

  • 2008-07-17 6:51 am
    strim

    Insert random anti-Microsoft rant.

    • 2008-07-17 8:06 am
      looncraz

      I second that emotion…

    • 2008-07-17 1:41 pm
      TaterSalad

      If only I didn’t post a comment I would have modded this up.

  • 2008-07-17 7:03 am
    kaiwai

    This is a prime example of a pointless survey which proves nothing, and worse, hugely inaccurate. Take Ubuntu for example, there are literally hundreds of official and unofficial mirrors world wide.

    As for the point of the survey – what was the actual point? what does it have to prove? the simple fact of the matter is, the Windows Update is a useless piece of rubbish whose reliance on an ActiveX plugin results in the freezing of browsers and all manner of problems.

    I remember when my aunty was infected by the blaster worm; I got rid of it, tried to update her system through Windows Update only to find that after installing the ActiveX control, the whole browser locked up every time I tried using Windows Update. What is the point of an update facility when the very tools that facilitate the detection and provision of updates screws up the whole machine?!

    Sure, Windows Vista has improved by using a local client instead of a website based update, but it isn’t the damn point. The point is simply this – the fact that they have ‘great uptime’ on the update servers prove nothing if either the updates break things or worse, when the client itself locks up the whole computer.

    As for Mac OS X/Apple, I’ve never once had a situation where by I’ve run the Apple updater and found that the server was unreachable – so I don’t know what on earth they used to base their ‘testing on’ given that there are a whole mountain of variables – hell, their own ISP could be the cause of the problem!

    The scary part, there are people who actually pay these clowns for their work.

    • 2008-07-17 12:43 pm
      jabbotts

      The apearance of the comparison has some historical basis. Not so long ago, the mythical uptime to beat used to be Yahoo with it’s BSDs showing uptime of a year or more. Being in University with the time to much around and reboot NT constantly, the idea of a year without rebooting was mindblowing. (I went the Linux based OS way, a friend went FreeBSD so we had fun jabbing each other about it.)

      I’d need too understand how this comparison was monitored and analysed to have an opinion on it’s value specifically. If results are from a balanced technological comparison then that’s what it is. In the past, that was used by the other fan camps to indicate stability.

      These days, the first thing across my mind is “hm.. no kernel updates during that year? Teeheehee… How do I get that auditing contract?”

      • 2008-07-18 10:22 am
        sorpigal

        But you see, server uptime is not involved here. This was an *availability* measurement, not an *uptime* measurement. Microsoft could provide 24 servers for Windows Update and reboot one every hour, if they so chose, so long as the incoming connections always hit a live one. Implying that this makes Windows a superior OS is mind-numbingly stupid.

        The real headline here is “Microsoft engineers can set up a fault tolerant, redundant service.” Frankly, anyone can do that. It takes talent and planning, sure, but anyone with virtually any platform can make that happen. It says a lot more about the people who set it up and maintain it than it does about the quality of what they maintain.

        • 2008-07-18 1:08 pm
          jabbotts

          There was another comment after my post that pointed out the Windows Update cluster uses a Linux based OS back end also. Based on availability and actual platform used in the cluster; I’d say it’s good news anyhow.

          So, to provide a valid comparison, we’d have to measure uptime and availability against single server systems.

  • 2008-07-17 7:19 am
    thecwin

    But if they can do high availability, why does the Windows Live messenger service go down so much?

    • 2008-07-17 5:03 pm
      Whats That There

      Windows Live servers are different servers than the Update ones. Maybe that has something to do with it.

  • 2008-07-17 7:20 am
    hussam

    EDIT…

    Ok, nevermind. they are talking about Microsoft/Ubuntu/OSX update servers and not about customer’s machines.

    Edited 2008-07-17 07:32 UTC

  • 2008-07-17 9:10 am
    Mellin

    Sweden is Microsoft country

    • 2008-07-18 7:57 am
      Mellin

      prove me wrong!

  • 2008-07-17 9:44 am
    porcel

    Well, windows update servers have relied for a long time on Akamai’s caching and load distributing network which runs Linux, so I am not sure that these people actually proved what they set out to prove.

    If you don’t believe me, google for Akamai and Windows Update yourself.

    • 2008-07-17 5:05 pm
      Whats That There

      Well, windows update servers have relied for a long time on Akamai’s caching and load distributing network which runs Linux, so I am not sure that these people actually proved what they set out to prove.

      If you don’t believe me, google for Akamai and Windows Update yourself.

      Microsoft only use Akamai for stress management, during times like the Blaster and Sasser worms. Normally, the Update servers run Windows, but during a virus outbreak, then, they switch to the Linux company.

  • 2008-07-17 10:00 am
    Warnaud

    I personnaly prefer a non 100% uptime server (I use linux and never had such trouble as there was hundred of update server, but let’s imagine ;) ) but a 100% FAST update server! When installing a PC, the updates takes more time than the install itself !!

    • 2008-07-17 12:55 pm
      jabbotts

      Get yourself a local repository.

      I do a lot of building VMs for various whims. Besides the time it takes for the updates to transfer and install, there is also the consumption of my monthly bandwidth alotment (ah, big name ISPs). My solution was to write a quick script against rsync and mirror the repositories on my local NAS through http. I then leave them open to my lan through my own httpd. Another script cleans out and adds the local NAS repositories. A quick rerun of the repository sync script captures any new packages. If the repositories are slow then cron the script. The rest of the traffic between various builds installing or updating happens inside my own network space at full speed. The only slowdown is the actual installing step.

      With Mandriva 2009 out soon, I’ll have to see about adding in another mirror set. Hopefully I can confirm that nothing is still running 2007.1 and drop that mirror out of the NAS to free up space.

  • 2008-07-17 10:17 am
    gedmurphy

    Do something bad, get shot down

    Do something good, get shot down

    I sometimes wonder what MS could do to avoid getting shot down.

    • 2008-07-17 12:39 pm
      hollovoid

      Do something bad, get shot down

      Do something good, get shot down

      I sometimes wonder what MS could do to avoid getting shot down.

      Sell Linux?

      Every market has trolls on either side of the bridge, go to redneck country and listen to the ford and chevy fans duke it out, its a natural human tendancy, and people should read between the lines, make up thier own minds instead of feeding em!

    • 2008-07-17 12:51 pm
      eantoranz

      Burst into flames an disappear? I’d be cheering at that sight!

    • 2008-07-17 1:24 pm
      apoclypse

      Stop being Microsoft.

    • 2008-07-17 3:28 pm
      helf

      a loose, loose situations? Sounds kinky.

      “lose”.

    • 2008-07-18 10:30 am
      sorpigal

      How about “Do nothing special, get article praising your product”?

      How about we change the headline to “Windows server farm run by smart Microsoft engineers provides better availability than a single Linux server”? How about we call it “Better planning allows Windows Update to be available 1% more often than Ubuntu Update”? How about next time somebody tries comparing apples to apples.

      This ‘article’ doesn’t prove one damn thing about the quality of any of the operating systems involved.

  • 2008-07-17 10:18 am
    sardaukar

    The difference here is that Windows Update can only be run as a *cluster* and as such it is fairly easy to have 100% uptime since the domain is always up, while some cluster nodes are rebooting… ;)

    Usually Linux does not resort to this technique to achieve high uptimes.

    • 2008-07-17 12:08 pm
      FellowConspirator

      They are reporting uptime via sampling (periodically checking on the server to see if it is up).

      In this particular case, they are reporting on Microsoft’s Windows Update servers, which is a cluster of Linux systems.

      The article is silly because it imputes that Windows is more stable than OS X or Ubuntu Linux on that basis. That’s a foolish conclusion for two reasons: they weren’t looking at any Windows servers, and, second, a high-availability cluster is always (well hopefully) have 100% uptime (assuming it was setup properly).

      • 2008-07-17 3:00 pm
        BluenoseJake

        In this particular case, they are reporting on Microsoft’s Windows Update servers, which is a cluster of Linux systems

        Actually, Windows update runs on windows. MS uses Akamai for caching, and it is those that run Linux.

  • 2008-07-17 11:06 am
    Janvl

    Very very interesting.

    So what do we do now we know that?

    Maybe concentrate on security? Or performance?

    Or something that matters, please.

    Bad survey, useless point and a waste of time and energy.

  • 2008-07-17 11:34 am
    Pfeifer

    The Microsoft Update servers are load-balanced by Akamai. Just “monitoring” (whatever that means) the website won’t give you representative data. I’d guess that the same applies for the Apple servers.

    This is no test for server reliability, this is a test of how much a company can invest in redundancy and load-balance. And that Microsoft (89,809 Employees) can afford more redundancy than Canonical ( 130 Employees) shouldn’t be a surprise.

    Edited 2008-07-17 11:37 UTC

  • 2008-07-17 11:39 am
    chaslinux

    I’ve worked in a mixed environment for a few years now and have seen a number of Windows servers go down because of software problems. Our Linux servers have only been brought down on purpose (during the same 3 year period) for things like hard drive upgrades (commodity PCs).

    • 2008-07-17 9:25 pm
      rockwell

      And of course, both the Windows and Linux boxes are on the exact same hardware and running the exact same apps coded by the exact same developers, right?

  • 2008-07-17 11:41 am
    Windows Sucks

    Lord, they can’t tout the uptime of their actual OS so they get someone to tout the uptime of their update service.

    If they are still using Akamai then it’s probably hosted on Linux or Unix anyway.

    http://algolog.tripod.com/linux/hindu/hindu.htm

    Sad, sad, sad!

    • 2008-07-17 3:40 pm
      helf

      akamai doesn’t host it. They use them for caching and what not, like LOTS of companies do.

      • 2008-07-17 5:20 pm
        Windows Sucks

        Actually they don’t host the pages but they mirror the content. That includes a lot of the actual patches that you install. Also the images etc you see on almost all MS pages for almost all their sites.

  • 2008-07-17 12:07 pm
    sevrage

    100% uptime?

    can anyone imagine anything other than 100%

    this is so pointless.

  • 2008-07-17 12:20 pm
    cmost

    It’s nice to see them get something right. 🙂

  • 2008-07-17 12:41 pm
    ashyanbhog

    I expect to see such f*)%^d up articles in user driven sites, not OSnews. Quality of articles on OSnews is steadily going down, the only reason I still visit it is from years of habit.

    I half expected to see a MS sponsored study praising Windows, or the experience of some dude who was surprised to find Windows 2008 was pretty stable, which would have probably made me happy,

    And here I am, only to find a stupid article talking about Update sever uptime!!!! Will the next article be about notepad opening faster in Windows?

    You can’t down mod articles in OSnews, but can down mod comments! Is it because editors selection of articles are equal to God’s words and cannot be questioned but only praised (recommend)? Atleast PCworld gives the freedom to down vote and at present it has 21 negative votes against 1 up vote.

    I’m taking OSnews off Google Reader, will delete OSnews account if the option is available.

    Edited 2008-07-17 12:46 UTC

  • 2008-07-17 12:44 pm
    AnXa

    Let’s find out in what ways Microsoft “sponsored” that Swedish uptime monitoring company.

    I bet that RedHat would have offered a lot better result with their network.

  • 2008-07-17 1:19 pm
    gilljr

    Besides the point that update availability has nothing to do with system uptime and as long as they are available during most hours occasional downtime of update servers does not matter …

    Ping is only an indicator of a server responding to ICMP. Update availability would be better tested in my mind by downloading the updates every so many minutes/hours.

    Better articles would test system uptime and factor in system down time due to updates during “maintenance window”.

    Every OS has its PROS/CONS. I run both Windows and Linux. I have no problems with either system. When the machines are running neither seem to fail during normal operation. The only annoyance to me is that my Windows servers require reboots to often to apply updates (This has been improved by Microsoft but they still have a long way to go). My Linux servers only require reboots when I change the kernel, which is very rare.

  • 2008-07-17 1:53 pm
    chrish

    Hey, good for them. We all know how vital the Windows Update site is, since there are huge security issues being discovered daily (ok, maybe not daily, but there’s a new security update that wants me to reboot almost every week).

    I’d like to know what sorts of hardware/software these sites are running on. Not that it matters, these sorts of things should have a “five nines” uptime, regardless.

    • 2008-07-17 2:04 pm
      TaterSalad

      If you are installing security updates to reboot every week then you are doing something wrong. Microsoft sends out patches once a month on the second Tuesday of every month. I’m not sure how you can be prompted weekly when the rest of the world does it only once a month.

  • 2008-07-17 2:30 pm
    cmost

    …if for no other reason than for the spell checking feature. The spelling and grammar in user posts recently is atrocious. I am not trying to be the grammar police, however, it strikes me as ironic that a news site geared towards technical people has comments that are written so poorly. If one is an intelligent person making an intelligent point, then one should try to do so in a post that isn’t riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. Otherwise, who will take your comments seriously? Just an observation. Cheers!

    • 2008-07-17 3:02 pm
      BluenoseJake

      …if for no other reason than for the spell checking feature. The spelling and grammar in user posts recently is atrocious. I am not trying to be the grammar police, however, it strikes me as ironic that a news site geared towards technical people has comments that are written so poorly. If one is an intelligent person making an intelligent point, then one should try to do so in a post that isn’t riddled with spelling and grammatical errors. Otherwise, who will take your comments seriously? Just an observation. Cheers!

      I certainly didn’t take this comment seriously. Grow up. we’re here to discuss technology, not spelling

      • 2008-07-17 4:55 pm
        raver31

        The guy did make a valid point. We are here to discuss technology, and most of the spelling mistakes made by people here, are made by die-hard Windows users. Users who happen to use IE.

        The other guy made the point that most of the spelling mistakes can be eradicated by installing and utilising firefox and firefox’s spelling addons.

        Therefore the original post is technology related.

        • 2008-07-17 5:37 pm
          BluenoseJake

          I disagree, maybe some posters are using work computers and it is against policy to install firefox. Maybe they’re using OS X (I do not know if it has universal spell check or not, or if safari does, I never checked). Maybe they are not native english speakers. Maybe they are canadian like me and spell colour and honour with an “u” (Firefox marks that as an error by default).

          I could even get with the sentiment about spelling, but being nit-picky about grammar is just asinine, as a lot of people here are non english speakers, and firefox doesn’t help that.

          • 2008-07-17 8:46 pm
            raver31

            They do have localised dictionaries, hence the UK spelling of “localised” ;)

          • 2008-07-18 3:20 am
            BluenoseJake

            that’s why I said “by default”

        • 2008-07-17 6:56 pm
          MollyC

          “Therefore the original post is technology related.”

          Too bad it has absolutely no relevance to the topic at hand. Maybe we can have some posts about who makes the best microwave oven as well, since that’s “technology related” too. ;)

    • 2008-07-17 3:27 pm
      StephenBeDoper

      Please, no! The semi-literacy around here is my main source of humour – from the “funniest errors” text file on my deskto; (all courtesy of OSNews comments):

      “for all intensive purposes” = “for all intents and purposes”

      “died in the whool” = “dyed in the wool”

      “server allergies” = “severe allergies”

      “premisquess ” = promiscuous

      “Common poeple” = “come on, people, …”

      “provail” = prevail

      “technicien” = technician

      “pooring” = pouring

      “heatred” = hatred

      “holy grale” = holy grail

      “flexibel” = flexible

      “reprocutions” = reprecussions

      “blote” = bloat

      “plunty” = plenty

      “infrigmentation” = infringement

      • 2008-07-17 4:25 pm
        Alex Forster

        Really? You really keep a textfile like that?

  • 2008-07-17 2:45 pm
    computerishcat

    I only see one problem with the study itself and that is the mirrors issue that the article discusses. (Ubuntu has lots of mirrors all over the world and the study only used one or two.)

    Other than that, the study seems perfectly fine, but does it matter? It seems unlikely that update servers not being up 100% of the time would cause a problem for anyone. I suppose if the uptime was less than 80-90% it would be a problem…

    I would like to get the opinion of someone who deals with large groups of servers or with pushing updates to big companies.

    Other random thought: Since Ubuntu updates are pushed on practically a daily basis and Windows and Mac updates are pushed much less frequently, could that be the explanation?

  • 2008-07-17 2:49 pm
    ashyanbhog

    Pingpong consulting conducted a study to benchmark performance of Solaris vs W2K3 for web server application. Based on the result of their findings they declared sun had 109% uptime.

    The study used Netcraft’ tried and trusted “Whats that Site running” tool. Detailing results of their study, they said, http://www.sun.com run on Solaris was last rebooted 109 days ago vs http://www.update.microsoft.com running on W2K3 that was rebooted 1 day ago.

    Further the study showed that Solaris had a average uptime of 237 days and max of 279 days. http://www.update.microsoft.com had a average uptime of 34 days and max of 58 days. This should be of grave concern to Mircosoft customers as the server is run by Mircosoft themselves!!!

    Based on results of their study, they declared Microsoft server as “Epic Fail”

    PS: Somebody please tell me how to delete my account on this stupid site. Thank you

    • 2008-07-17 2:57 pm
      Warnaud

      What only 109% ?? And it reboots only 1 times per century! Great ;)

  • 2008-07-17 2:56 pm
    Xaero_Vincent

    LOL.

    So there is a 1.4% chance risk that Ubuntu users will need to download from one of countless mirror servers?

    I’m not sure about Ubuntu but in Fedora and RHEL the mirrors are already listed in the .repo files and will be used automatically if one server fails.

    Actually, mirrors are used by default because I have the yum plugin that selects the “fastest” server.

    Anyway… all I’m gonna say is this:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HyophYBP_w4

    Edited 2008-07-17 15:00 UTC

  • 2008-07-17 3:41 pm
    ohxten

    They’re using Ubuntu, that’s why. What kernel version? I’d like to see it compared against *BSD as well.

    Who cares, anyway.

  • 2008-07-17 4:17 pm
    smilie

    IBM mainframes have clocked up to 35 years of up time.

    VMS/OpenVMS minicomputers have clocked up around 20 years of uptime and one VAX cluster even remained up while it was being moved from one building to another.

  • 2008-07-17 5:35 pm
    tuaris

    Keyword is “availability”. Microsoft has a bigger infrastructure that Ubuntu or Apple. If all three infrastructures where equal, then the results of this study would actually mean something.

    • 2008-07-17 7:26 pm
      aaron

      Also I think that the timing of Ubuntu’s downtime would be interesting as it could of been caused by people upgrading to a new version as opposed to mainly patches.

      Either way there is only a few percent in it.

      I just wish that Ubuntu used deltas by default and fell back to full downloads when required as even the smallest update to something like open office or the Kernel can be quite a hefty download.

  • 2008-07-17 9:45 pm
    2501

    How much did MS pay for this??????????

  • 2008-07-18 3:16 am
    pixel8r

    Actually the title is WRONG. Its should read “Windows Update scores 100% uptime”. The servers themselves more than likely didn’t. I’m not suggesting other OS’s would be any different either. But we know that on a single server level, 100% uptime is impossible, if only for the fact that each server needs updating from time to time.

    IF windows update ran on ONE single windows server (and the same for apple/ubuntu), ONLY THEN could we make direct comparisons between the operating systems mentioned…

    But because we know that windows update has many many more servers worldwide, supported by very good data links, because MS can afford it more than other companies, then all this is comparing is the network infrastructure of each of the companies’ update systems.

    Clearly, MS is the winner here, and I would suggest that 100% should be VERY achievable when you have that many servers. Compare the uptime of google, and you would see similar numbers I would imagine….yet we know google doesn’t run on windows…

    If you have enough servers, so that when one fails you can quickly repair it while the rest take over.

    Its not a difficult concept – so why is this news?

    Edited 2008-07-18 03:19 UTC

  • 2008-07-18 5:46 pm
    Tomrade

    I like how it doesn’t mention Microsoft outsources it file serving to another company and they run Freebsd

  • 2008-07-19 6:24 am
    darkcoder

    They either have a damn good cluster, or do not update their own servers. Because practically all the “Patch Tuesdays” you have to restart your computer after the update process.

  • 2008-07-21 1:10 pm
    kvarbanov

    the next meaningless, false poll/experiment. Good job ms marketing department ;) or not really ? This thing reminds me in the social polls done in my country – you go to a marketing company or a statistics bureau and order (pay for) whatever results you need. Then the poll shouts – those are the best TV players / best washing machines / best politic of the year. LOL