Long-time stability of windows

Adalbertus · May 20, 2003, 15:02

Currently I'm working on the completion of a larger instrument which is supposed to run without major problems the next thirty years (ok, at night I'm dreaming of something else). One of the components has, by choice of the manufacturer, a windows based control unit, and I fear I can't change this. I'm usually very sceptic on the long-time stability of Windows. So far, it is based on Windows 2000, but we also might get a Windows XP system in the final version. So, what I would like to know is:
1) Can somebody say anything about the long-term stability of a Windows (2000, XP) environment, if I don't run much other software on it?
2) Is it advisable to give the system a regular reboot, and if so, in which intervals (once a week, or so?)

I'm looking for serious answers here. If you want to flame windows create another thread, please. I'll happily join the barbecue.

reds4ever · May 20, 2003, 15:06

1) I've used both and found XP Pro to be more reliable (others may have found othewise it's just my personal opinion)

2) There are 2 schools of thought on this, I'm firmly in the 'if it ain't broke, don't try and fix it' camp, and leave mine on 24/7

HTH's

Nubclear · May 20, 2003, 15:09

I can leave my Windows XP on for weeks without it crashing. And I'm running quite a bit of software.....

Whaleboy · May 20, 2003, 15:10

Think you might be better off with 2000 (2003 server probably needs more time to build up a reputation), XP is good for desktops so I'm told. I of course prefer Linux/Unix, but thats not what your asking. Of course XP looks nicer, but I know 2000 has a reputation for good stability as a server base, I think its linux's main competition in the server market (again with 2003 server).

Rasbelin · May 20, 2003, 15:16

/me has been running Windows 2000 Server nonstop without any restarts for over one month soon.

1. In general you don't want Win XP Pro for a server or any such solution.
2. You need to restart in order to apply updates to the OS, which is every now and then. Otherwise it's pretty straight forward.

Adalbertus · May 20, 2003, 15:21

Thanks for the quick answers (more experiences are welcome). A crash probably won't ruin more than time and a measurement or two, but in my case this is bad enough to do everything not to make it happen. So a "let it crash when it comes to" it not really an option if I can improve stability otherwise.

Rasbelin · May 20, 2003, 15:42

Then I really suggest that you use Windows 2000 Server, regularly see if there's any problems, kill any apps with noticable memory leaks and restart them. Also regularly (not as frequent as doing health checkups) update the OS, any programs that might require a reboot and then finally restart the server. If it's scheduled well, you won't notice any greater cuts in the service.

Rasbelin · May 20, 2003, 15:44

What also backs the W2K choice is that SP4 is under work.

reds4ever · May 20, 2003, 15:44

how about a back up server?

Rasbelin · May 20, 2003, 15:48

Take RAID with mirroring, UPS and a redundant power supply instead. That's a more worthy investment.

Adalbertus · May 20, 2003, 15:55

Quote:

how about a back up server?

It's not a server but more of a machine control system ... we're not really swimming in money (was worse a year ago, will be worse next year), and the company nearly went bancrupt through the development of the device (a very young startup company making a loss of around 20000 Euros), so we now have to pay for every bit.

Q Classic · May 20, 2003, 18:32

do not play baseball near windows.

Paul Hanson · May 20, 2003, 18:50

Or cricket. Cricket's also a bit of a no-no.

Urban Ranger · May 21, 2003, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Asuka
Take RAID with mirroring, UPS and a redundant power supply instead. That's a more worthy investment.

Not RAID 1 (mirroring) but RAID 5. Also you want the ability to hot swap HDD's.