Rich Johnson wrote:
On Saturday, October 4, 2003, at 12:24 AM, Jacob Anawalt wrote:
Everytime I think about this thread or any boast about uptime one
question comes into my mind:
Are these machines on trusted networks with trusted users, or do
people really get lucky and pick or compile a ker
Tom wrote:
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 05:11:49PM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
hi ya
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Vineet Kumar wrote:
* Kyle Loree ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030929 08:58]:
the other system is at 486 days 16 hours 36 minutes, and I expect that it will
do the rollover in another 11 days.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 20:05, Tom wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 05:11:49PM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
> >
> > hi ya
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> >
> > > * Kyle Loree ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030929 08:58]:
> >
> > > >
> > > > the other system is at
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 20:05, Tom wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 05:11:49PM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
> >
> > hi ya
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> >
> > > * Kyle Loree ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030929 08:58]:
> >
> > > >
> > > > the other system is at 486 days 16 hours 36 minutes
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 19:54, csj wrote:
> At Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:23:28 -0500,
> Ron Johnson wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Not a bug, but the limitation of 32-bit integers. The kernel
> > "ticker" has a resolution of 1/100th of a second. Thus, a
> > little math will show you that it takes 497 days, 2 h
At Mon, 29 Sep 2003 12:23:28 -0500,
Ron Johnson wrote:
[...]
> Not a bug, but the limitation of 32-bit integers. The kernel
> "ticker" has a resolution of 1/100th of a second. Thus, a
> little math will show you that it takes 497 days, 2 hours, 27
> minutes and 53 seconds worth of 1/100th of a
On Mon, Sep 29, 2003 at 05:11:49PM -0700, Alvin Oga wrote:
>
> hi ya
>
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Vineet Kumar wrote:
>
> > * Kyle Loree ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030929 08:58]:
>
> > >
> > > the other system is at 486 days 16 hours 36 minutes, and I expect that it will
> > > do the rollover in another
hi ya
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> * Kyle Loree ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030929 08:58]:
> >
> > the other system is at 486 days 16 hours 36 minutes, and I expect that it will
> > do the rollover in another 11 days.
> > is there anything I can do so that the uptime will be retained?
>
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 14:02, Sebastian Kapfer wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:50:16 +0200, Vineet Kumar wrote:
>
> > Why? Your uptime is the amount of time your machine has been running,
> > not the output of the uptime command. Just because you overflow a
> > 32-bit number with it, it doesn't m
On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:50:16 +0200, Vineet Kumar wrote:
> Why? Your uptime is the amount of time your machine has been running,
> not the output of the uptime command. Just because you overflow a
> 32-bit number with it, it doesn't mean your machine is any less stable.
BTW, wouldn't this wrapar
* Kyle Loree ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [030929 08:58]:
> I have two Debian severs that were installed on kernel 2.2.x and are now
> 2.4.17-686-smp.
>
> one has seemed to have been restarted.
> 09:41:45 up 2 days, 4:26,
>
> in reading http://e-zine.nluug.nl/hold.html?cid=158 the uptime returns to
> ze
On Mon, 2003-09-29 at 10:49, Kyle Loree wrote:
> I have two Debian severs that were installed on kernel 2.2.x and are
> now 2.4.17-686-smp.
>
> one has seemed to have been restarted.
> 09:41:45 up 2 days, 4:26,
>
> in reading http://e-zine.nluug.nl/hold.html?cid=158 the uptime
> returns to zer
I have two Debian severs that were installed on kernel 2.2.x and are now 2.4.17-686-smp.
one has seemed to have been restarted.
09:41:45 up 2 days, 4:26,
in reading http://e-zine.nluug.nl/hold.html?cid=158 the uptime returns to zero after 497 days, 2 hours, 27 minutes and 53 seconds
it state
13 matches
Mail list logo
