<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 8/31/05, <b class="gmail_sendername">Alan Horn</b> <<a href="mailto:ahorn@deorth.org">ahorn@deorth.org</a>> wrote:</span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I could argue that theres a greater likelihood of catastrophic hardware<br>failure when it finally *is* powercycled.
</blockquote><div><br>
No you would increase the changes of catastrophic hardware as you are subjecting the system to more power cycles.<br>
</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Regular preventive maintenance type work including reboots can be a Good<br>Thing (tm)
<br>
</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Or maybe thats folklore ?</blockquote><div><br>
I don't believe that a reboot is a form of maintenance. It is a fix for
a broken OS, or an needed when upgrading a kernel(by definition every
other part of the OS does not need to remain in memory and so should be
able to be replaced, in a running system). Rebooting is also a good
idea to make sure the machine will return to the proper state after a
reboot, but that is only needed when you first configure or change a
configuration.<br>
</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><br>Cheers,<br><br>Al<br><br></blockquote></div><br>