Re: Nasty suprise with uptime

[Matthew Dharm <mdharm-kernel@one-eyed-alien.net>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1544 bytes --]

No, but there are a couple of applicable Linux policies:
(1) If it breaks, you get to keep both halves.
(2) If it's broken, fix it yourself.

:)

Matt

On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 12:39:37PM -0800, J Sloan wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > > and received a nasty surprise. The uptime, which had been 496+ days
> > > on Friday, was back down to a few hours. I was ready to lart somebody
> > > with great vigor when I realized the uptime counter had simply wrapped
> > > around.
> > >
> > > So, I thought to myself, at least the 2.4 kernels on our new boxes won't
> >
> > It wraps at 496 days. The drivers are aware of it and dont crash the box
> 
> Yes, and these boxes are still running fine - other
> than showing some processes that were started
> in the year 2003... but DAMN, what an eyesore -
> uptime ruined as far as anybody can tell, times
> and dates no longer making any sense.
> 
> So, is there an implicit Linux policy to upgrade
> the distro, or at least the kernel, every 496 days
> whether it needs it or not?
> 
> ;-)
> 
> cu
> 
> jjs
> 
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

-- 
Matthew Dharm                              Home: mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net 
Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver

NYET! The evil stops here!
					-- Pitr
User Friendly, 6/22/1998

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]