From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030235AbWGaQli (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:41:38 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030236AbWGaQli (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:41:38 -0400 Received: from mail.linicks.net ([217.204.244.146]:14492 "EHLO linux233.linicks.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030235AbWGaQlh (ORCPT ); Mon, 31 Jul 2006 12:41:37 -0400 From: Nick Warne To: Jan Engelhardt Subject: Re: Preserving uptime with kexec? Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 17:40:06 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.3 Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Thomas Tuttle , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <20060731125913.GA27083@phoenix> <7c3341450607310846p33049e72o17c1acd446110c4d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200607311740.06140.nick@linicks.net> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Monday 31 July 2006 17:28, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > Speaking of which, I have submitted a claim to Guiness Book of Records > > for my uptime on a lowly 486 box that serves my webpages (via NFS) as > > a 'home user' (I am sure business classed machines do better with UPS > > etc.). I have posted here twice when it hit 1000 days and then 1500 > > days: > > http://en.uptime-project.net/ > someone's going to beat you by lengths... Yeah... but how do you prove it? The top machine on http://counter.li.org/ http://counter.li.org/reports/uptimestats.php is just above mine - but running a kernel that wasn't even released that amount of days ago? Anyway, on cue (would you believe THIS?!?), about 10 minutes after I replied to this thread, I received a mail: Claim ID: xxxxxx Membership Number: xxxxx Dear Mr Warne, Thank you for sending us the details of your recent record proposal for 'home computer - longest 'uptime''. We are afraid to say that we are unable to accept this as a Guinness World Record. We have considered your proposal carefully but regret that it is not something for which we are currently interested in listing a record. We receive over 60,000 enquiries a year from which only a small proportion are approved by our experienced researchers to establish new categories. We realize that this will be disappointing to you. However, we have considered your proposal fully; in the context of the specific subject area and that of records as a whole, and our decision is final in this matter. Once again thank you for your interest in Guinness World Records. Yours sincerely, Amarilis Espinoza Records Management Team Heh. BUGGER! Nick -- Every program has two purposes: one for which it was written and another for which it wasn't.