I thought it was a cardinal sin to force a server to reboot...?
-
But as the OP asked, is it appropriate to just reboot servers "because"? And the answer is no. Never. And it got so bad with these idiots they had to put enterprise hooks in to turn this off. One writes software to be stable. Microsoft has deliberately engineered a sporadic reboot that none of my customers would ever tolerate. It's criminal. Let me give you one simple example. I need to be able to run soak tests for weeks/months at a time. I have multiple UPS', I am very careful with my hardware, etc. I've developed under openVMS, Solaris, HPUX, IBM AIX, Linux and Microsoft. The only company and OS that forces reboots is Microsoft. So, I'm not sure what the point of your comment is. The OP asked a simple question, and the answer is no. No OS should ever just reboot itself. So, I picked bologna to avoid profanity. You really don't want me speaking what I'm really thinking.
Charlie Gilley “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759 Has never been more appropriate.
But as the OP asked, is it appropriate to just reboot servers "because"? Yes, it is. The world is full of Tao practitioners.
-
...hence why I used Server 2022 when I built my latest dev VM. I got tired of finding out my previous Windows 10 dev VM had rebooted right after Patch Tuesday. But no, my dev machine rebooted last night at 00:45am. Lost an awful lot of context. Meanwhile, the VM *host*, running Server 2012 R2, back when it was still supported and getting updates, would patiently wait for months if I just let it. Surely server admins aren't putting up with this. Surely MS hasn't changed the default behavior so a server OS can now reboot if it just feels like it.
Ah, the advantages of living in an area where the infrastructure (like power and broadband) are... unreliable. At work the IT gestapo reboot your machine at will, fortunately after working hours. If you are on the company network it will happen. The power can be iffy as well. We have a massive generator for backup power, but it only runs our de-ionized water system. The offices can suck it. Home is slightly different. Both power and Internet can be unreliable, mainly due to the weather. My town has major outages at least once a year, and minor ones a couple of times. When I'm not actively using my machines, I've exited all apps except for my mail client (Outlook at work, Thunderbird at home). The boxes can reboot to their hearts content. I've always done this, because it's just safer. I don't see the value in having your development machine sitting there with a bunch of things running, breakpoints set, processes waiting. You're going to leave it like that at the end of the day and expect to remember all that context when you start again in the morning, or after a weekend? You're smarter folks than I am if you make that work. It's funny to me when people bitch about stuff like this when the solution is so utterly simple.
Software Zen:
delete this; -
dandy72 wrote:
Surely server admins aren't putting up with this.
Not sure what you mean. Standard large distributed system architecture design would be to expect servers to reboot, fail, and even just disappear (taken down and not restored.) As an example AWS SLA is 99.99% per month. So it will fail. You only get back (money) for the time it was down if it was down for more than that. And it is generally up to you to figure it out and prove it.
dandy72 wrote:
so a server OS can now reboot if it just feels like it.
I believe one can turn patching off entirely. That however only prevents reboots due to a patch. Restarts for other reasons are possible. Some that I can think of - Manual reboot request - Perhaps detected error. So OS and/or hardware detected problem and restarted. - Power problem.
dandy72 wrote:
a server OS can now reboot if it just feels like it.
Perhaps not applicable to you but at least AWS will force updates for certain cases. They give notice but if the user has not updated the system by the specified date they will just do it.
jschell wrote:
Standard large distributed system architecture design would be to expect servers to reboot, fail, and even just disappear (taken down and not restored.)
We are not talking about a unforeseen failure that crashes a server. We are talking about an outside third party intentionally rebooting a server at its whim, completely ignoring the needs of the owner of that server. For former is an "act of god". The latter is an "act of Microsoft".
jschell wrote:
Perhaps not applicable to you but at least AWS will force updates for certain cases. They give notice but if the user has not updated the system by the specified date they will just do it.
Emphasis mine. This is a totally different scenario, as the owner of the servers (AWS) gives notice to the tenants that maintenance is required, and acts when a deadline has been reached. Similarly, all computers and major systems at my employer undergo periodic maintenance. The respective owners give users (tenants) sufficient warning ahead of time, and any who fail to heed the warning, get what they get.
-
Dunno. My Win 10 desktop system keeps chugging along waiting patiently for me to apply updates when I'm good and ready.
Which version? Win10 Enterprise can have policies set to allow updates only on the owner's schedule, cutting Microsoft out. I run Win10 Professional at home, and AFAIK I can't easily shut off the updates, but I can snooze them for roughly 5 weeks. My practice is to snooze the updates, then every 3 to 4 weeks, when it's convenient for me, I unsnooze and let it do its thing. Then I snooze it again. UPDATE: I found a group policy setting that shuts off automatic updates and allows manual check. I'm going to try that.
-
But as the OP asked, is it appropriate to just reboot servers "because"? Yes, it is. The world is full of Tao practitioners.
-
Which version? Win10 Enterprise can have policies set to allow updates only on the owner's schedule, cutting Microsoft out. I run Win10 Professional at home, and AFAIK I can't easily shut off the updates, but I can snooze them for roughly 5 weeks. My practice is to snooze the updates, then every 3 to 4 weeks, when it's convenient for me, I unsnooze and let it do its thing. Then I snooze it again. UPDATE: I found a group policy setting that shuts off automatic updates and allows manual check. I'm going to try that.
If that works, can you please post a followup comment about it?:cool:
Time is the differentiation of eternity devised by man to measure the passage of human events. - Manly P. Hall Mark Just another cog in the wheel
-
jschell wrote:
Standard large distributed system architecture design would be to expect servers to reboot, fail, and even just disappear (taken down and not restored.)
We are not talking about a unforeseen failure that crashes a server. We are talking about an outside third party intentionally rebooting a server at its whim, completely ignoring the needs of the owner of that server. For former is an "act of god". The latter is an "act of Microsoft".
jschell wrote:
Perhaps not applicable to you but at least AWS will force updates for certain cases. They give notice but if the user has not updated the system by the specified date they will just do it.
Emphasis mine. This is a totally different scenario, as the owner of the servers (AWS) gives notice to the tenants that maintenance is required, and acts when a deadline has been reached. Similarly, all computers and major systems at my employer undergo periodic maintenance. The respective owners give users (tenants) sufficient warning ahead of time, and any who fail to heed the warning, get what they get.
BryanFazekas wrote:
We are not talking about a unforeseen failure that crashes a server. We are talking about an outside third party intentionally rebooting a server at its whim, completely ignoring the needs of the owner of that server.
This. So much this.
BryanFazekas wrote:
For former is an "act of god". The latter is an "act of Microsoft".
I think the fundamental problem here is that according to Microsoft, there is no difference between the two. :-)
-
Microsoft makes a point to dogfood their own products. They even came up with the verb "dogfood" That tells me there's probably a way to turn the "feature" off, even if it's on by default (which it shouldn't be, but that's MS for you)
Check out my IoT graphics library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/gfx And my IoT UI/User Experience library here: https://honeythecodewitch.com/uix
honey the codewitch wrote:
That tells me there's probably a way to turn the "feature" off, even if it's on by default (which it shouldn't be, but that's MS for you)
That was my primary point. As mentioned, I can have Server 2012 R2 wait for *months* with the reboot prompt waiting for me to click it - it'll never initiate the actual reboot on its own. But *something* has changed somewhere along the way so nowadays the Server releases are now as dumb as the consumer ones. If I try to manually reboot Server 2022, I'll get the prompt that's asking for the reason to reboot (unless I disable it). But even that, apparently, is not enough to prevent the OS from waiting indefinitely. Or Notepad waiting with a "Save Changes Y/N" prompt. That used to be enough to prevent a reboot. Not anymore. It used to kill every other process until it reached that one, but it never forced it to be killed.
-
Dunno. My Win 10 desktop system keeps chugging along waiting patiently for me to apply updates when I'm good and ready.
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
waiting patiently for me to apply updates
Probably an important distinction: I'm not talking about waiting for me to install updates; I do have it install them (since that's something that can take a while, but can run in the background while I keep working). I just want it to wait for me after that to give the okay to reboot. That's how I've always done it. But in this particular case, I imagine, the prompt comes up while I'm away, it gets no response, then reboots on its own overnight. Server 2012 R2 (and probably others) waited indefinitely. 2022 won't even wait for 24 hours, whether you've seen the prompt or not.
-
First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out — because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out — because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me — and there was no one left to speak for me.
-
You mean Windows servers have UPtime???? I usually reboot them every couple of days to make sure they are actually able to boot again
hevisko wrote:
I usually reboot them every couple of days to make sure they are actually able to boot again
There was a point in time where I would have agreed with you wholeheartedly. But Windows has come a long way - even consumer editions. It's never had (so far) uptimes as long as it does nowadays, save for hardware failures (which in all fairness, no OS can survive) or bad drivers. But we're not talking about hardware failures here; we're talking about the OS deciding to reboot itself on its own, without giving you the option to postpone as you wish.
-
Ah, the advantages of living in an area where the infrastructure (like power and broadband) are... unreliable. At work the IT gestapo reboot your machine at will, fortunately after working hours. If you are on the company network it will happen. The power can be iffy as well. We have a massive generator for backup power, but it only runs our de-ionized water system. The offices can suck it. Home is slightly different. Both power and Internet can be unreliable, mainly due to the weather. My town has major outages at least once a year, and minor ones a couple of times. When I'm not actively using my machines, I've exited all apps except for my mail client (Outlook at work, Thunderbird at home). The boxes can reboot to their hearts content. I've always done this, because it's just safer. I don't see the value in having your development machine sitting there with a bunch of things running, breakpoints set, processes waiting. You're going to leave it like that at the end of the day and expect to remember all that context when you start again in the morning, or after a weekend? You're smarter folks than I am if you make that work. It's funny to me when people bitch about stuff like this when the solution is so utterly simple.
Software Zen:
delete this;Gary Wheeler wrote:
I don't see the value in having your development machine sitting there with a bunch of things running, breakpoints set, processes waiting. You're going to leave it like that at the end of the day and expect to remember all that context when you start again in the morning, or after a weekend? You're smarter folks than I am if you make that work
You have it exactly backwards. It's because it's so *hard* to get it back into that state that I leave it on overnight. There's no chance I'll remember it all otherwise.
-
You've never been employed as a server admin, have you? Or if you have...I'm guessing exactly once and never again.
More like an application admin, with responsibility for applying the latest security patches, too. Life is too short to wait for everyone to be in the right moment. [Maybe they are running critical infrastructure](https://linuxize.com/post/heartbleed-still-found-in-the-wild/) [They too](https://mytechdecisions.com/network-security/log4shell-issue-decade/)
-
...hence why I used Server 2022 when I built my latest dev VM. I got tired of finding out my previous Windows 10 dev VM had rebooted right after Patch Tuesday. But no, my dev machine rebooted last night at 00:45am. Lost an awful lot of context. Meanwhile, the VM *host*, running Server 2012 R2, back when it was still supported and getting updates, would patiently wait for months if I just let it. Surely server admins aren't putting up with this. Surely MS hasn't changed the default behavior so a server OS can now reboot if it just feels like it.
cardinal or capital?
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
More like an application admin, with responsibility for applying the latest security patches, too. Life is too short to wait for everyone to be in the right moment. [Maybe they are running critical infrastructure](https://linuxize.com/post/heartbleed-still-found-in-the-wild/) [They too](https://mytechdecisions.com/network-security/log4shell-issue-decade/)
Peter Adam wrote:
Life is too short to wait for everyone to be in the right moment.
Sometimes, that's just not your call. A buddy of mine also worked for a large company; he was responsible for getting things patched, and sometimes, an upgrade and subsequent reboot required a sign-off from 8 different people agreeing on a time and date.
Peter Adam wrote:
Maybe they are running critical infrastructure They too
Sure, some admins are downright irresponsible and *never* apply patches. For a decade, exactly as one of your links points to. But ultimately, patching/rebooting is the admin's responsibility; whoever makes a patch can't make those decisions on anyone else's behalf. That's what I'll object to and I'll fight this tooth and nail.
-
cardinal or capital?
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Nelek wrote:
cardinal or capital?
I deliberately chose "cardinal". Interestingly, searching for "capital sin" on Wikipedia brings me to its page on the Seven Deadly Sins. But searching on Wikipedia for "cardinal sin" brings me to a disambiguation page - and the Seven Deadly Sins page is one of the targets.
-
If that works, can you please post a followup comment about it?:cool:
Time is the differentiation of eternity devised by man to measure the passage of human events. - Manly P. Hall Mark Just another cog in the wheel
Mark Starr wrote:
If that works, can you please post a followup comment about it?
Will do. The process I used is: 1. Launch the Run command (Win + R). Type in "gpedit.msc" and hit Enter to open the group policy editor. 2. Drill down through Computer Configuration | Administrative Templates | Windows Components | Windows Update 3. In the right pane, select Configure Automatic Updates [I had to sort by name, as there are many options in no obvious sort order] 4. Click Disabled to select it, then click Apply and then OK The descriptions in the Configure Automatic Updates dialog talk about Windows XP, so this is old. I did this on my laptop, but not my desktop. I'm going to watch on a daily basis to see what happens. Note 1: When I go into Windows Update in red it reads "*Some settings are managed by your organization" Below the Check for Updates button it reads "*Your organization has turned off automatic updates" I have hopes it will work, but fear it just can't be this easy. We are dealing with MS, after all. Note 2: If Enabled is clicked, options can be set to "3 - Auto download and notify for install". If the above works, I may try this, as I have no problem with updates being downloaded. My objection is automatic updates and especially being forced to reboot.
-
dude, some of us may run "server" OS, but I suspect we're talking about a machine almost certainly used in development. I do expect interruptions, it's why I have a UPS in my office. The context is MS forcibly rebooting machines because they are just stupid and have their heads where the sun doesn't shine. I'm being polite. Ask me how I really feel. There is not another OS in the world that forces updates/reboots like this. It's just stupid. Customers I work with have some sort of enterprise version where the forced reboot is clearly disabled. I've logged into these machines for months and seen "you need to reboot" popups. I'm not the sysadmin, so it's not up to me to reboot things.
Charlie Gilley “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759 Has never been more appropriate.
charlieg wrote:
The context is MS forcibly rebooting machines
The OP does not state that they found the cause of the reboot. As I noted in my response there are a number of possible causes.
charlieg wrote:
where the forced reboot is clearly disabled.
Which applies to one situation.
-
jschell wrote:
Standard large distributed system architecture design would be to expect servers to reboot, fail, and even just disappear (taken down and not restored.)
We are not talking about a unforeseen failure that crashes a server. We are talking about an outside third party intentionally rebooting a server at its whim, completely ignoring the needs of the owner of that server. For former is an "act of god". The latter is an "act of Microsoft".
jschell wrote:
Perhaps not applicable to you but at least AWS will force updates for certain cases. They give notice but if the user has not updated the system by the specified date they will just do it.
Emphasis mine. This is a totally different scenario, as the owner of the servers (AWS) gives notice to the tenants that maintenance is required, and acts when a deadline has been reached. Similarly, all computers and major systems at my employer undergo periodic maintenance. The respective owners give users (tenants) sufficient warning ahead of time, and any who fail to heed the warning, get what they get.
BryanFazekas wrote:
We are talking about an outside third party intentionally rebooting a server at its whim
The OP did not state that.
BryanFazekas wrote:
(AWS) gives notice to the tenants that maintenance is required, and acts when a deadline has been reached.
And yet in my experience people are still surprised when it happens. The notice was given but they did not see it so they do not understand why it happened.
BryanFazekas wrote:
Similarly, all computers and major systems at my employer undergo periodic maintenance.
In my experience I have had to debug production server problems because someone did an update without telling anyone. Sometimes without even documenting it. Even when documented often without documenting what the exact update did. And then when I am tasked with determining the problem, no one on the call is even aware that an update happened.
-
But as the OP asked, is it appropriate to just reboot servers "because"? And the answer is no. Never. And it got so bad with these idiots they had to put enterprise hooks in to turn this off. One writes software to be stable. Microsoft has deliberately engineered a sporadic reboot that none of my customers would ever tolerate. It's criminal. Let me give you one simple example. I need to be able to run soak tests for weeks/months at a time. I have multiple UPS', I am very careful with my hardware, etc. I've developed under openVMS, Solaris, HPUX, IBM AIX, Linux and Microsoft. The only company and OS that forces reboots is Microsoft. So, I'm not sure what the point of your comment is. The OP asked a simple question, and the answer is no. No OS should ever just reboot itself. So, I picked bologna to avoid profanity. You really don't want me speaking what I'm really thinking.
Charlie Gilley “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759 Has never been more appropriate.
charlieg wrote:
No OS should ever just reboot itself
I can remember my surprise when running on a Solaris system when it would do a cold boot when I attempted to run Netscape. Every single time. Pretty sure the OS and/or the hardware was in fact in charge of doing the cold boot. Myself I design for failure. Boxes will go down. Doesn't matter why.