From: J Sloan <jjs@lexus.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Linux kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Nasty suprise with uptime
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:39:37 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3BDDBE89.397E42C0@lexus.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <E15yJD1-0003uO-00@the-village.bc.nu>
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
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2001-10-29 20:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-10-29 20:31 Nasty suprise with uptime J Sloan
2001-10-29 20:40 ` Alan Cox
2001-10-29 20:39 ` J Sloan [this message]
2001-10-29 20:47 ` Matthew Dharm
2001-10-29 20:52 ` J Sloan
2001-11-09 0:45 ` Dr. Kelsey Hudson
2001-10-29 21:26 ` David Relson
2001-10-29 23:29 ` Jonathan Briggs
2001-10-30 8:53 ` george anzinger
2001-10-30 13:50 ` Tim Walberg
2001-10-30 14:47 ` GOMBAS Gabor
2001-10-30 15:39 ` Tim Walberg
2001-10-30 16:18 ` GOMBAS Gabor
2001-10-30 22:53 ` Mike Castle
2001-10-30 8:20 ` george anzinger
2001-10-30 9:47 ` bert hubert
2001-10-30 10:37 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-10-30 15:56 ` Chris Meadors
2001-10-30 16:22 ` Laurent de Segur
2001-10-30 21:53 ` [OT] " J Sloan
2001-10-30 22:52 ` Jan Dvorak
2001-10-30 23:25 ` [OT] " J Sloan
2001-10-30 7:46 ` Neale Banks
2001-10-30 7:46 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-10-30 8:15 ` Ville Herva
2001-10-30 8:22 ` Ville Herva
2001-10-30 8:36 ` J. Dow
2001-10-30 9:33 ` Alan Cox
2001-10-30 16:25 ` Matt Bernstein
2001-10-30 19:43 ` Oden Eriksson
2001-10-29 23:10 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-10-29 23:20 ` J Sloan
2001-10-29 23:28 ` Mike Fedyk
2001-10-30 8:21 ` Ville Herva
2001-10-31 22:36 ` J Sloan
2001-11-01 0:49 ` Gerhard Mack
2001-10-30 8:49 ` george anzinger
2001-10-30 18:17 ` J Sloan
2001-10-30 9:06 ` Alan Cox
2001-10-30 19:19 ` J Sloan
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-10-30 16:35 Jesse Pollard
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3BDDBE89.397E42C0@lexus.com \
--to=jjs@lexus.com \
--cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox