From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: James Subject: Re: utmp rollover at 496 days? Date: Thu, 9 May 2002 20:33:51 +0100 Sender: linux-admin-owner@vger.kernel.org Message-ID: <20020509193351.GL7173@piku.org.uk> References: <20020509105357.C9463@redwing> <5.1.0.14.0.20020509105827.00b139e0@mustang> Mime-Version: 1.0 Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5.1.0.14.0.20020509105827.00b139e0@mustang> List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-admin@vger.kernel.org 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)