Re: [OT] 1500 days uptime.

jdow
2005-11-29T23:08:18Z

From: "Nick Warne" <nick@linicks.net>

> On Tuesday 29 November 2005 00:31, Wakko Warner wrote:
>> Bill Davidsen wrote:
>> > Nick Warne wrote:
>> > >Hi all,
>> > >
>> > >BrrrrrrrrrrrrBrrrr
>> > >
>> > >That was me blowing my own trumpet again :-)
>> > >
>> > >Re:
>> > >http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0407.1/0651.html
>> > >
>> > >Now just hit 1500 days:
>> > >
>> > >-
>> > >[nick@486Linux nick]$ last -xf /var/run/utmp runlevel
>> > >runlevel (to lvl 3) Sun Oct 14 16:07 - 21:41
>> > >(1502+06:34)
>> > >
>> > >utmp begins Sun Oct 14 16:07:40 2001
>> > >-
>> > >
>> > >Utterly remarkable - the box gets no maintenance at all.
>> >
>> > But it clearly gets a very reliable flavor of electricity...
>> >
>> > >I would love to know how much data it has delivered, but alas, in 2001 I
>> > >wasn't up-to-speed with that sort of thing :-)
>> >
>> > We got one to 1460 or so, then got BSOD on the controller which switches
>> > from the UPS to the diesel when they get up to speed, dropped power on
>> > the whole data center (at work).
>> >
>> > I think you have the record, though.
>>
>> I'm not sure about that one. =)
>
> No, I wasn't even thinking that - just reporting what a wonderful job it all
> is - and yes, power supply here in Pompey UK is good (but we do pay thru' the
> nose for everything in the UK). The last time I _did_ reboot that machine
> was when my kettle lead shorted out and blew the fuses to my flats 240v
> supply ring main.
>
> According to the Linux counter site, there are more higher (my machine is 3rd
> in the list):
>
> http://counter.li.org/reports/uptimestats.php

There is an interesting point here that is worth noting. I don't think I
would BEGIN to try this with a 2.6 based kernel. And I am not sure it is
doable yet with a 2.4 kernel if the machine is to be exposed to the wild.

{o.o} Joanne Dow