Andrew Pritchard ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >From the Man page:
>uptime gives a one line display of the following information.
>The current time, how long the system has been running, how
>many users are currently logged on, and the system load
>averages for the past 1, 5, a
Scyld. Two-kernel-monte. Becker's had the setup to do it for about a
year, but I think it resets uptime...
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, dman wrote:
>On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 05:16:37AM +0200, Martin F Krafft wrote:
>| also sprach Jason Boxman (on Sat, 15 Sep 2001 08:22:26PM -0400):
>| > Dude, what kern
On Tue, Sep 18, 2001 at 12:45:35PM -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
| * dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
| > On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 10:20:33AM -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
| > | * dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
| > | ...
| > | >
| > | > The difference bewteen server and workstation is a
* dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 10:20:33AM -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> | * dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> | ...
> | >
> | > The difference bewteen server and workstation is a couple registry
> | > keys and the price tag. :-)
> |
> | I used to think
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 01:50:30PM -0700, Vineet Kumar wrote:
| * dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010916 18:21]:
| > Ooh, cool. I'll have to check it out. Maybe that way I could switch
| > framebuffer resolutions without rebooting :-).
|
| umm ... I take it you've never heard of fbset?
Close. I've h
On Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 10:20:33AM -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
| * dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
| ...
| >
| > The difference bewteen server and workstation is a couple registry
| > keys and the price tag. :-)
|
| I used to think that, too, until a (shudder) VB/MSSQL app I wrote
| refu
* dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [010916 18:21]:
> Ooh, cool. I'll have to check it out. Maybe that way I could switch
> framebuffer resolutions without rebooting :-).
umm ... I take it you've never heard of fbset?
--
Vineet http://www.anti-dmca.org
Unauthorized us
* dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
...
>
> The difference bewteen server and workstation is a couple registry
> keys and the price tag. :-)
I used to think that, too, until a (shudder) VB/MSSQL app I wrote
refused to run on NT swerver (developed on WS). And yes, I made sure
all relevant DL
* Martin F Krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
...
>
> oh, so you mean it was optimized for network access? hah! well, i have
> one of those servers standing right here, running *only* checkpoint
> firewall-1 on a *fresh* install, with *flawless* hardware, and guess
> what - crashes every fi
on Mon, Sep 17, 2001 at 01:26:44PM +1200, Richard Hector ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> dman wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 03:03:39PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> > | on Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 11:29:21PM -0400, dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
<...>
> > | > The next killer-feature would
dman wrote:
>
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 03:03:39PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> | on Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 11:29:21PM -0400, dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> | > On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 05:16:37AM +0200, Martin F Krafft wrote:
> | > | also sprach Jason Boxman (on Sat, 15 Sep 2001 08:22:26PM -04
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 11:17:48PM +0200, Martin F Krafft wrote:
| also sprach Dimitri Maziuk (on Sun, 16 Sep 2001 02:38:55PM -0500):
| > We didn't run luser apps on it, except Access (well, DAO, actually).
| > Other than that it was serving files 24/7. And it was NT _server_,
| > not WS.
|
|
| o
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 03:03:39PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
| on Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 11:29:21PM -0400, dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
| > On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 05:16:37AM +0200, Martin F Krafft wrote:
| > | also sprach Jason Boxman (on Sat, 15 Sep 2001 08:22:26PM -0400):
| > | > Dude, what
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 02:38:55PM -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
| * Rino Mardo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
| > On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 01:45:41PM -0500 or thereabouts, Dimitri Maziuk
wrote:
| > > * Craig Dickson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
| > > > will trillich wrote:
| > > >
| > > >
hi ya...
you can already upgrade the kernel w/o rebooting...
went looking for the project name ... but could not find it in my archived
emails
have fun
alvin
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, dman wrote:
..
> | these machines are around: piper as a modem/fax server, and piper as a
> | print server. work
To regain some on-topic-ness: if you ever need to get the redhat-version
of Checkpoint FireWall-1 to run on a Debian box, I might be able to help..
You probably don´t want to read below, I´m basically just ranting.
On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 00:08:30 +0200, Martin F Krafft writes:
>also sprach Robert
also sprach Robert Waldner (on Mon, 17 Sep 2001 12:01:26AM +0200):
> Not to give NT any honour, but that´s probably FW-1. It runs reasonably
> (for commercial-firewall-software - values of) stable on AIX, Solaris and
> Debian, but the NT-port is...utter crap.
well, that's probably true. but how
on Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 11:29:21PM -0400, dman ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 05:16:37AM +0200, Martin F Krafft wrote:
> | also sprach Jason Boxman (on Sat, 15 Sep 2001 08:22:26PM -0400):
> | > Dude, what kernel version is on those?!
> |
> | > > piper:/var/log# uptime
> | > >
also sprach Dimitri Maziuk (on Sun, 16 Sep 2001 04:13:36PM -0500):
> More to the point, that post triggerred a pet peeve of mine: winders
> can be stable, when set up properly. Anyone who says (or implies)
> otherwise is clueless luser perpetrating FUD.
i'd be happy to challenge you on that one. n
also sprach Dimitri Maziuk (on Sun, 16 Sep 2001 02:38:55PM -0500):
> We didn't run luser apps on it, except Access (well, DAO, actually).
> Other than that it was serving files 24/7. And it was NT _server_,
> not WS.
oh, so you mean it was optimized for network access? hah! well, i have
one of th
* Dimitri Maziuk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> * Rino Mardo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> > On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 01:45:41PM -0500 or thereabouts, Dimitri Maziuk
> > wrote:
...
> > > Hmm. We had an NT swerver with about 8 months uptime at work[n - 1].
> > > The only reson it got rebo
* Rino Mardo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 01:45:41PM -0500 or thereabouts, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> > * Craig Dickson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> > > will trillich wrote:
> > >
> > > > $ uptime
> > > > 12:44am up 365 days, 1:31, 2 users, load average: 0.1
On Sat, 2001-09-15 at 22:29, dman wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 05:16:37AM +0200, Martin F Krafft wrote:
> | also sprach Jason Boxman (on Sat, 15 Sep 2001 08:22:26PM -0400):
> | > Dude, what kernel version is on those?!
> |
> | > > piper:/var/log# uptime
> | > > 16:58:42 up 854 days, 11:46, 67
also sprach dman (on Sun, 16 Sep 2001 08:09:12AM -0400):
> Shh! You don't want anybody to suspect that you may have had the
> ability to fake those numbers! It would be cool to be able to upgrade
> a kernel without rebooting regardless of uptime.
word. and whatever people suspect, i love these
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 01:56:01PM +0200, Martin F Krafft wrote:
| also sprach dman (on Sat, 15 Sep 2001 11:29:21PM -0400):
| > The next killer-feature would be the ability to upgrade the kernel
| > while it is running without losing the uptime. :-).
|
| you can always just hack the kernel and pu
also sprach dman (on Sat, 15 Sep 2001 11:29:21PM -0400):
> The next killer-feature would be the ability to upgrade the kernel
> while it is running without losing the uptime. :-).
you can always just hack the kernel and put an offset into the uptime
:)
martin; (greetings from the he
On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 05:16:37AM +0200, Martin F Krafft wrote:
| also sprach Jason Boxman (on Sat, 15 Sep 2001 08:22:26PM -0400):
| > Dude, what kernel version is on those?!
|
| > > piper:/var/log# uptime
| > > 16:58:42 up 854 days, 11:46, 67 users, load average: 0.05, 0.05, 0.01
|
| 2.0.22
|
also sprach Jason Boxman (on Sat, 15 Sep 2001 08:22:26PM -0400):
> Dude, what kernel version is on those?!
> > piper:/var/log# uptime
> > 16:58:42 up 854 days, 11:46, 67 users, load average: 0.05, 0.05, 0.01
2.0.22
> > titan:~# uptime
> > 11:06am up 1556 day(s), 4:30, 113 users, load average: 0.
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 01:45:41PM -0500 or thereabouts, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> * Craig Dickson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> > will trillich wrote:
> >
> > > $ uptime
> > > 12:44am up 365 days, 1:31, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.03, 0.01
> > >
> > > break out the root beer!
> >
>
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 08:22:26PM -0400, Jason Boxman wrote:
> On Saturday 15 September 2001 11:08 am, Martin F Krafft wrote:
> > also sprach will trillich (on Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:45:15AM -0500):
> > > $ uptime
> > > 12:44am up 365 days, 1:31, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.03, 0.01
> >
> > p
On Saturday 15 September 2001 11:08 am, Martin F Krafft wrote:
> also sprach will trillich (on Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:45:15AM -0500):
> > $ uptime
> > 12:44am up 365 days, 1:31, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.03, 0.01
>
> piper:/var/log# uptime
> 16:58:42 up 854 days, 11:46, 67 users, load averag
On Sat, 15 Sep 2001, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
> > > $ uptime
> > > 12:44am up 365 days, 1:31, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.03, 0.01
> > >
> > > break out the root beer!
> >
> > Congrats! I think I'll show this to a few Windows users.
In the mid-80's we ran IBM 3090 mainframes. Big Iron. On
On Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 01:45:41PM -0500, Dimitri Maziuk wrote:
| * Craig Dickson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
| > will trillich wrote:
| >
| > > $ uptime
| > > 12:44am up 365 days, 1:31, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.03, 0.01
| > >
| > > break out the root beer!
| >
| > Congrats! I t
* Craig Dickson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly:
> will trillich wrote:
>
> > $ uptime
> > 12:44am up 365 days, 1:31, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.03, 0.01
> >
> > break out the root beer!
>
> Congrats! I think I'll show this to a few Windows users.
Hmm. We had an NT swerver with about
also sprach will trillich (on Sat, 15 Sep 2001 12:45:15AM -0500):
> $ uptime
> 12:44am up 365 days, 1:31, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.03, 0.01
piper:/var/log# uptime
16:58:42 up 854 days, 11:46, 67 users, load average: 0.05, 0.05, 0.01
titan:~# uptime
11:06am up 1556 day(s), 4:30, 113 use
hi ya will
- donno what happened... i hit the wrong key.. re-editing again
congrats on your long uptime..
i have a few servers up over a year and some approaching 2 yrs...
some are too old that it rolls over and started from "zero" day uptime
and for even longer uptimes... ( 1300+ days )
will trillich wrote:
> $ uptime
> 12:44am up 365 days, 1:31, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.03, 0.01
>
> break out the root beer!
Congrats! I think I'll show this to a few Windows users. My machines are
rarely up for more than a month or two at a time due to my addiction to
kernel updates.
On Saturday 15 September 2001 01:45 am, will trillich wrote:
> $ uptime
> 12:44am up 365 days, 1:31, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.03, 0.01
>
> break out the root beer!
>
> :)
You da man.
(I bet you just jinxed it and the power just went out such that the UPS
couldn't hold out, right? ;) )
On Friday 14 September 2001 10:45 pm, will trillich wrote:
> $ uptime
> 12:44am up 365 days, 1:31, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.03,
> 0.01
>
> break out the root beer!
>
> :)
Since I don't have root on your machine, I'll just break out the beer
;-)
- David "legal to drink as of two days a
I drink to you!
:)
And to Linux!
-Original Message-
From: will trillich [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, September 15, 2001 11:45 AM
To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: uptime
$ uptime
12:44am up 365 days, 1:31, 2 users, load average: 0.10, 0.03, 0.01
break out th
a quick tip on preserving uptime (not related to your incident,
unfortunately)
floppy drives, at least under linux, are fully hot swappable. I have
tried it myself.
jason
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Original Message -
From: "will trillich" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2
I upgraded all the "section: base" packages and it worked.
bash-2.01$ uptime
12:41am up 29 min, 2 users, load average: 0.07, 0.05, 0.07
Thank you all.
At\'e breve
===
Pedro Quaresma de Almeida
Departamento de Matem\'atica
Faculdade de Ci\^encias e Tecnologia
Univer
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Will Lowe wrote:
> On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Pedro Quaresma de Almeida wrote:
>
> > >> the answer it is
> > >> bad data in /var/run/utmp
> > >Have you upgraded to libc6?
> > Yes.
>
> Point dselect at ftp.debian.org and make SURE you've upgraded all the base
> and standard packag
On Wed, 28 Jan 1998, Pedro Quaresma de Almeida wrote:
> >> the answer it is
> >>bad data in /var/run/utmp
> >Have you upgraded to libc6?
> Yes.
Point dselect at ftp.debian.org and make SURE you've upgraded all the base
and standard packages to their libc6 equivalents. Libc6 redefines some
ba
>> uptime
>> the answer it is
>> bad data in /var/run/utmp
>Have you upgraded to libc6?
>
Yes.
I have a Matrox Millenium II, and it requires the last XFree release,
and it requires the upgrad to libc6.
At\'e breve
===
Pedro Quaresma de Almeida
Departamento de
> uptime
> the answer it is
> bad data in /var/run/utmp
Have you upgraded to libc6?
Will
--
| [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] |
|
46 matches
Mail list logo
