Royal Pingdom has posted the results of a short study that looked at the availability of the software update services for three popular operating systems: Windows, Mac OS X, and Ubuntu.
Pingdom's uptime monitoring service performed a test once every five minutes and if downtime was found, it was confirmed from two different locations and was counted for however long it lasted. The results were then tabulated in a graph:
Microsoft won with 100 percent availability (0 minutes of downtime), Apple came in second with 99.9 percent availability (2 hours and 34 minutes of downtime), and Ubuntu came in last with 98.64 percent availability (1 day, 5 hours and 45 minutes of downtime). Microsoft doesn't have much to be proud of, as it's the biggest of the three, and it's no surprise it took first place. Apple's 99.9 percent is also quite respectable.
Pingdom's uptime monitoring service performed a test once every five minutes and if downtime was found, it was confirmed from two different locations and was counted for however long it lasted. The results were then tabulated in a graph:
Microsoft won with 100 percent availability (0 minutes of downtime), Apple came in second with 99.9 percent availability (2 hours and 34 minutes of downtime), and Ubuntu came in last with 98.64 percent availability (1 day, 5 hours and 45 minutes of downtime). Microsoft doesn't have much to be proud of, as it's the biggest of the three, and it's no surprise it took first place. Apple's 99.9 percent is also quite respectable.
...For Ubuntu we monitored the URL “archive.ubuntu.com” which is the main repository that contains all the packages that can be downloaded through Ubuntu. Again, it should be pointed out that there are other mirrors that can be used.
http://royal.pingdom.com/?p=319
So, in actual fact, you can get updates for Ubuntu all the time... the data here is skewed.
Good point, although they should use load-balancing instead of mirrored servers.
Also, the amount of users for each OS should be taken into consideration, I'm betting MS have at least 10 times more servers for updates than Apple.
Good point, although they should use load-balancing instead of mirrored servers.
Good point, but with mirrored servers I can pick a specific mirror (namely one that is part of the PIPE network here in Australia) and have that download excluded from my monthly download quota
...For Ubuntu we monitored the URL “archive.ubuntu.com” which is the main repository that contains all the packages that can be downloaded through Ubuntu. Again, it should be pointed out that there are other mirrors that can be used.
http://royal.pingdom.com/?p=319
So, in actual fact, you can get updates for Ubuntu all the time... the data here is skewed.
Bad point, have you checked the status of their mirrors?! most of them are very slow and always outdated by a big diffrence than the main servers.
I have actually never heard of that comment. Most of the mirrors are very fast even when you're using a mirror outside your own country. Most of the mirrors are just as updated as the "main" repository or nearly as updated as the "main" but some of them are not and differ a lot (those are the unofficial mirrors). The official mirrors are hosted by organisations like universities and ISP's. Those organisations have a very good infrastructure and reliability, organisations who are able to realise an uptime of 99,9%. I myself haven't noticed any speed differences between the mirrors in .nl, .uk, .de and the "main" one. Neither have I noticed any difference in the amounts of updates pushed or any big difference between those repositories.
There have been 3 occasions (as in the 3 faulty updates that got pushed out) already where a slight delay in pushing the updates to all the repositories actually saved a lot of trouble. It was big enough to stop the faulty updates from pushing to the other repositories and eventually to the computers. Having a bit of a delay between a complete sync has more advantages than just that btw. There will always be some sort of delay because we have different timezones. People who are trying to update machines will be affected by this and even the mirrors. Timezones are a good thing for infrastructures: it's like a natural loadbalancer
I actually have found more problems with Windows Updates not working than Apple or Ubuntu linux updates not working. Windows Updates tends to time out quite often compared to the other two. Apple update can be slow sometimes, especially when a new "service pack" is out. Haven't noticed that with Ubuntu, only when a new release is out. Windows Updates on the other hand is mostly slow and a lot of people complain when it's the first tuesday of the month again. Akamai also notices a big hit on their capacity. This is something I actually can't find in the article nor am I able to find anything about what "a test every 5 minutes" means. There is no explanation what they tested in that 5-minute test which makes the entire test and conclusion worthless. In the end I think it doesn't matter, all 3 systems are equally good but I do think Ubuntu is slightly better because of their mirror systems which is better suited to balance the load (systems like Windows & Apple Update are not like that).
Ah, I think I know why there's a difference: the infrastructure in the USA is really crappy, the EU has a far better infrastructure especially countries like the Netherlands and Sweden. Downloading from some sites in the USA won't exceed 20 kB/s while we in the Netherlands are able to download with 1+ MB/s (some people are on fiber and have something like 20, 30, 50 or even 100 Mbit/s). So I really do think the infrastructure in the USA really has to do a lot with the outcome of the test and the different speeds/uptimes I'm experiencing (since I'm in the Netherlands).
Last edited by dyn on 16 Jul 2008 - 12:04
There is this big thing called the Atlantic Ocean, it tends to slow down Internet traffic a bit.
I have little problem getting fast speeds in the US, but I'm from the US. I've never really had too much problem getting decent speeds from the US to the EU either.
Congrats to Microsoft on their 100%. Apple did pretty well, too. And shame on Pingdom for even thinking that this could be promoted as a valid comparison.
I would say that Microsoft does have something to be proud of. Because it is the biggest also meads it would be the service hit the hardest but yet Microsoft is the only one with 0 downtime.
I would say that Microsoft does have something to be proud of. Because it is the biggest also meads it would be the service hit the hardest but yet Microsoft is the only one with 0 downtime.
Agreed. Because Microsoft is the biggest, generally the demand is the highest, meaning the stress on the servers is greater. Kudos to Microsoft.
So true. If Apple and Microsoft's data was flipped, they would certainly bash MS there too, saying some BS with it.. I hate fanboys.. I mean, get a life and speak the truth, who gives a care about what you choose?
Whats the point of this statistic anyway???
Makes sense on account of its constant flamming.. It is ArsTechnica.
LOL. You obviously don't know who wrote this news article.
Eh? Serving up terabytes of data to tens of millions of systems with no downtime? Sure, they were cheating, using all that expensive proprietary software whereas Ubuntu had to make do with its freeware junk.
But then you look at uptime percentage. If you plot 0%, 0.01% and 1.36% on a chart you wouldn't even be able to see a difference.
Still, a perfect score on an update service that provides the vast majority of computer updates is very impressive.
Secondly, I would like to know how much traffic these servers were hit with!
Correct me if I'm wrong, I've been out of the windows loop for nearly 4 years now, but I thought the windows update thing is mostly used for small patches & fixes, for bigger microsoft software like IE and for the very big service packs. Right?
And if nobody has been fooling me, microsoft chooses who gets what update at a specific time.
You can't compare that to the ubuntu servers.
The ubuntu repositories are used for EVERYTHING. You can get nearly every piece of software you need on these servers. Of course, there are a lot more windows users in the world, this is still something to keep in mind.
I also believe the biggest hog on these servers is the six-month release schedule. We get a new OS every six months! Windows users don't even get a service pack that often. That's a lot of MB that needs to be downloaded by every Ubuntu user! I agree that the servers go incredibly slow at that time (but I mostly update to the newer release a few days before or after official release)
Ps: Freeware junk, seriously? That's the statement you're making?
So yes Microsoft deserves credit. And yes, Ubuntu needs to improve. However, Ubuntu is free, is a smaller operation and distributes a lot more content. It's Apple that needs to improve most - they put out the signs of being a big player but it's still a lot of hot air.
"Microsoft doesn't have much to be proud of, as it's the biggest of the three, and it's no surprise it took first place. Apple's 99.9 percent is also quite respectable. "
100% uptime is hell to achieve. Just because MSFT is huge, doesn't mean they should automaticly be able to turn the world upside down.
You can achieve 100% uptime using balancing load and several server if not thousand, Microsoft have the money for do it.
The chart is accurate, but it is not graphing "uptime", it is graphing "downtime". The scaling they use is appropriate for the data shown.
You can achieve 100% uptime using balancing load and several server if not thousand, Microsoft have the money for do it.
You know its really not as simple as your saying it..
I used to run a private server for an online game and had 2 servers running, and it was hard to monitor just those! Now try 5,000+, I'd love to see you skip through it as you did in your speech.
I used to run a private server for an online game and had 2 servers running, and it was hard to monitor just those! Now try 5,000+, I'd love to see you skip through it as you did in your speech.
:p
I remembered when Ubuntu 8.04 was released. I couldn't get any updates for it (even using the mirrors). Tsk tsk
Thanks for correcting me. I knew I done something wrong.
I got 4.3 MB/s but never past. On average I get 3-3.5 though. On online downloads I get like 800-900 Kbps though, so I'm pretty sure your statement is right.
When I used Ububntu, i found that the servers other than the main one, were always slow and out dated also.
I have had problems apply update with linux. Havnt really had any issues with Apple updates tho.
The point is you should be able to apply updates whenever you want no matter the time of day. I work on PCs and servers all the time and when I am building a new machine, I need to know I can access Windows updates at any time.
Yea, but Apple also charges a lot of $$$ for their hardware and you an only get a Mac from Apple. So they are still making a butt load of money. Also, they have the iPod and iPhone which are doing really well. Granted, they still arnt MS.
Thats a problem with your comp not microsoft. I can do multiple things at once while the update is downloading and installing without a problem. So don't go blaming microsoft for your problems.
Thats a problem with your comp not microsoft. I can do multiple things at once while the update is downloading and installing without a problem. So don't go blaming microsoft for your problems.
A problem with my computer which is running... *drum roll* Windows! So it is their fault
Thats a problem with your comp not microsoft. I can do multiple things at once while the update is downloading and installing without a problem. So don't go blaming microsoft for your problems.
A problem with my computer which is running... *drum roll* Windows! So it is their fault
You cannot be 100% sure it is Windows that is causing this. There are MANY other factors that could be the problem. I never had had this issue. More likely whatever you are doing while the updates are downloading is causing interference with the updates. Then your connection to the update server gets lost and you have to start all over again. Blaming MS for this issue is like blaming BMW for your tired going bad cuz you hit a pot hole in the road. Not everything is MS fault
Thats a problem with your comp not microsoft. I can do multiple things at once while the update is downloading and installing without a problem. So don't go blaming microsoft for your problems.
A problem with my computer which is running... *drum roll* Windows! So it is their fault
You're on a laptop? Not using WiFi, are you?
Microsoft is very good, and sometimes the best at many things. I like the fact that i don't need to wait to download updates until the automatic deployment kicks in.
When i found that they roll out updates, i open Windows Update and check for them. It downloads them right away and i never had any single issue. Single computer or many at the same time.
Is it not surprising that this MS bashing is on the rise everyday. What surprises me is that most articles/notes are so biased and yet people seem to believe/trust them.
It's funny how Apple fan boys always find ways to distort the facts and make them in their favor... And it's the same with OS X, Iphone, Apple computers and so on. And Intel used to suck, now it's the best... bla bla bla
ARGH
That we have the best OS? The best (virus free) user experience? The best interface? The best phone? The best design?
And Intel used to suck, absolutely. Enter the AMD Athlon series - Thunderbird, Thoroughbred, Palomino, Barton, etc., that used to spank competing Intel cpus consistently. Now Intel has finally put some R&D and $$$ into its products, and made a very wise choice by hooking their wagon to Apple's star.
There is no distortion. The only real, consistent success story in the industry for the past few years has been Apple. They make products that people want - exciting, interesting, easy to use products. It's pretty simple.
That we have the best OS? The best (virus free) user experience? The best interface? The best phone? The best design?
And Intel used to suck, absolutely. Enter the AMD Athlon series - Thunderbird, Thoroughbred, Palomino, Barton, etc., that used to spank competing Intel cpus consistently. Now Intel has finally put some R&D and $$$ into its products, and made a very wise choice by hooking their wagon to Apple's star.
There is no distortion. The only real, consistent success story in the industry for the past few years has been Apple. They make products that people want - exciting, interesting, easy to use products. It's pretty simple.
WOW You are so blind.
The best OS is Windows has it has the biggest user share.
The best user experience is also on Windows because more users experience it and enjoy it together
The best interface is N/A as both are great and different users like different things
The best phone is also the most outdated phone to come out.
The best design is also sketchy as I personally dont like the all white.
Intel has ALWAYS been the upperhand in the (home) processor department. AMD has never (except for one flawed year which IMO Intel actually let themselves slip because the monopoly police would have been all over them) beat Intel.
Its pretty simple that you can keep lying to yourself and others. But whatever floats your boat.
WOW You are so blind.
The best OS is Windows has it has the biggest user share.
...
Most sold = best.
WOW You are so blind.
The best OS is Windows has it has the biggest user share.
...
Most sold = best.
I know you're using sarcasm, but according to the majority, that's exactly what it means. They're the best to the majority of people. If they weren't, why would they sell the most?
"Best" is a quality that is not measured in "units sold".
"That we have the best OS? The best (virus free) user experience? The best interface? The best phone? The best design?"
Ha ha ha, no, no, no, and noooooo. But who is this "we"? Are you in the Jobs family or does giving a company money make you feel like family?
"And Intel made a very wise choice by hooking their wagon to Apple's star."
Now, if we shift focus to reality, here's what really happened. Apple needed Intel so they could run Windows and hence sell more computers (It is one of their primary selling and marketing points). Intel was just happy to have another customer, just as Microsoft is more than happy to sell Windows to new and existing Mac customers.
The only real, consistent success story in the industry for the past few years has been Apple.
Wrong. And now a question: Microsoft has earned an increasing level of profit for how many years in a row now? At least 5... Apple doesn't even come close to that. And given that businesses succeed for the sole purpose of generating profit, your statement is not only laugh out loud funny, but incorrect and terribly biased.
Research first, post second