Netcraft has published the second half of 2003’s Top 10 hosting providers survey and list which Operating Systems they use for reliability. Seven providers use FreeBSD, one Windows and one Linux.
Netcraft’s Top 10 of Hosting Companies OSes
Submitted by User 2004-01-14 Internet 12 Comments
I know that some folks will take this as trolling, but I am not suprised.
7 BSD, 2 Linux, 1 Windows.
They say this “Seven of the top nine sites run on FreeBSD. The exceptions are Datapipe, which is doing a fine job of promoting the reliability of Windows 2003, and German hosting company komplex.net which runs on Linux.”
They don’t mention the 10th site, http://www.jumpline.com which is also on Linux.
Me neither. When someone says “rock-solid reliability”, the first thing in my mind is “BSD”, and in particular, the “Free” variety.
For the most part though, I do prefer Linux for just about everything.
Wow, zero seconds of outage for the entire year. That’s pretty amazing. I always hear how Windows is unstable and “b$0d lololerz,” but it looks like well-administered Windows servers are as capable (and in this chart – more) capable of being perfectly reliable.
It goes to show that a variety of OS’ can be used with reliability. But its main point is the reliability of hosting companies. To me it shows that OSS/GPL can compete with the best commercial software.
Windows; ya got one ada boy mr. gates.
Kingston?? What do you mean by trolling? And yes I know what trolling is all about. I just dont understand your statement.
which is a different implementation for the same problem.
Wether true or false (couldn’t care less), does internationalization matter for _stability_? Nope, it does not.
Journaling vs Softupdates analysis:
No, Linux is way more POSIX conformant, the GNU Libc is extremely modern and complete.
I was under the impression that all the BSDs used Libc6 as well.
This guy is a known ‘bsd is dying’ troll from ./ – figured no one reads his posts there (-1/0 treshhold) so he came here to troll osnews – don’t reply to his posts – it is harmless, really (I mean he is very silly, to hate an OS – any OS – like that). Just ignore him.
If I remember recent perfomance benchmarks posted (I belive) even on osnews, linux-2.4 is not a great performer compared to freebsd. Stability wise, 2.4 may not have earned a lot of reputation either (it takes time to get a reputation). Linux kernel 2.4.x has a lot going for it on the desktop but there may be better alternatives for webserving. I believe the 2.6 kernel will offer tougher competition to freebsd in the future though.
Interesting. I’ve never used FreeBSD either at home or at work. At home, I’m familiar with Debian and it simply too easy to not use. I would consider using FreeBSD at work, but I’m primarily a server side Java developer and I’ve always heard that Java performance on FreeBSD tends to be pretty crappy due to inefficient threading.
Perhaps this situation has changed. Does anybody have experience with 20+ thread applications on recent versions of FreeBSD? What about dual/quad processor machines?
I would certainly consider checking it out. 1000’s of Yahoo! servers can’t be wrong…
FreeBSD 4.x is remarkably stable (as the numbers on this survey testify); however, the devel branch, 5.x, is naturally not as stable yet. If you are having problems, are you, perhaps, running production servers on the 5.x branch? If so I recommend you try FreeBSD 4.9.
Quite simply, a lot of your comments don’t quite make sense, or are not really significant (eg, multimedia) given its role in this discussion as a web server. If you don’t like FreeBSD, that is fine, Linux can do some nice things too, and is worth sticking with if you like it. FreeBSD, however, is a solid, stable and reliable workhorse, which I believe is the overall best choice among UN*X/Linux systems on x86 platforms.
and yahoo uses google so…not shure if google.com does the actual search or buffered on yahoo wich I don`t think so yes….