Interesting Assertions on W2K Stability

["Joe Pluta" <joepluta@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Maybe 99.99%, that would be almost an hour. That I'd buy. Of course I have
> no problem getting that from a cluster of W2K machines either.

I suppose you're right, especially if you have the expertise.  It should be
no problem keeping your down time to under an hour if you know how to
administer the machine.  Like, say, Microsoft should.

Oh wait.  How many times was MSN down this year?  For how long?  They may
have managed 90% uptime (that'd be 88 hours downtime), but not 99%, and
certainly not 99.99%.  I go by what I see, and it I haven't seen that
clustered MS servers are particularly reliable.

And if your argument is that Microsoft is not running W2K clusters (because
I have no idea what MS is running - other than the work they outsource to
AS/400's), then my question is "Why not?".

Joe