* utmp rollover at 496 days?
@ 2002-05-09 17:53 jim roy
2002-05-09 18:09 ` Scott Taylor
2002-05-09 18:15 ` Joseph Bueno
0 siblings, 2 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: jim roy @ 2002-05-09 17:53 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-admin
I have two machines which have not been rebooted sind Dec 2000.
At day 497, on both machines, the uptime command began anew at day 0.
Anybody know what's up with that?
Jim Roy
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: utmp rollover at 496 days?
2002-05-09 17:53 utmp rollover at 496 days? jim roy
@ 2002-05-09 18:09 ` Scott Taylor
2002-05-09 19:33 ` James
2002-05-09 18:15 ` Joseph Bueno
1 sibling, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Scott Taylor @ 2002-05-09 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-admin
At 10:53 AM 09/05/2002, you wrote:
>I have two machines which have not been rebooted sind Dec 2000.
Way to go.
>At day 497, on both machines, the uptime command began anew at day 0.
Don't you think it's time for a good cleaning and maybe replace a hard
drive or two by now?
>Anybody know what's up with that?
Guessing Linus didn't figure you would run it so long, with out some kind
of maintenance, so using a very short integer to count days would save
space in the kernel. I've only seen this question asked about 3 times, and
once was for an SCO UNIX (maybe XENIX) that would crash on day 498.
The 2.4.19 kernel has or is patched to fix this.
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: utmp rollover at 496 days?
2002-05-09 18:09 ` Scott Taylor
@ 2002-05-09 19:33 ` James
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: James @ 2002-05-09 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-admin
On Thu, May 09, 2002 at 11:09:05AM -0700, Scott Taylor wrote:
| At 10:53 AM 09/05/2002, you wrote:
|
| >I have two machines which have not been rebooted sind Dec 2000.
|
| Way to go.
Indeed! And I thought 200 days was good :)
| >At day 497, on both machines, the uptime command began anew at day 0.
|
| Don't you think it's time for a good cleaning and maybe replace a hard
| drive or two by now?
Nah, if it still works, leave it be. Although it has rolled over, so it
doesn't look as "eleet" when you type "uptime" any more...
| >Anybody know what's up with that?
|
| Guessing Linus didn't figure you would run it so long, with out some kind
| of maintenance, so using a very short integer to count days would save
| space in the kernel. I've only seen this question asked about 3 times, and
| once was for an SCO UNIX (maybe XENIX) that would crash on day 498.
There's another way to track uptime now. It requires a very technical
tool known as a "black marker". Every time the counter rolls, make a
mark on the computer's casing :-)
--
This punishment is not boring and pointless
6AD6 865A BF6E 76BB 1FC2 | www.piku.org.uk/public-key.asc
E4C4 DEEA 7D08 D511 E149 | www.piku.org.uk wnzrf@cvxh.bet.hx (rot13'd)
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: utmp rollover at 496 days?
2002-05-09 17:53 utmp rollover at 496 days? jim roy
2002-05-09 18:09 ` Scott Taylor
@ 2002-05-09 18:15 ` Joseph Bueno
1 sibling, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Joseph Bueno @ 2002-05-09 18:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jim roy; +Cc: linux-admin
jim roy wrote :
>
> I have two machines which have not been rebooted sind Dec 2000.
>
> At day 497, on both machines, the uptime command began anew at day 0.
>
> Anybody know what's up with that?
>
> Jim Roy
Hi,
This is a known problem with older kernels.
uptime is kept in a 32 bits counter with a resolution of 1/100th of
a second so it rollover after 497 days.
It has been discussed in linux-kernel mailing list a few months ago
and I think it is now fixed in 2.4 kernel.
Regards
--
Joseph Bueno
NetClub/Trader.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2002-05-09 19:33 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2002-05-09 17:53 utmp rollover at 496 days? jim roy
2002-05-09 18:09 ` Scott Taylor
2002-05-09 19:33 ` James
2002-05-09 18:15 ` Joseph Bueno
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).