Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (3996 mails)
| < Previous | Next > |
Re: [SLE] Uptimes
- From: Anders Johansson <andjoh@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2004 08:27:41 +0200
- Message-id: <200409050827.41705.andjoh@xxxxxxxxxx>
On Sunday 05 September 2004 08:21, Richard Bos wrote:
> Op zondag 5 september 2004 07:23, schreef Anders Johansson:
> > I have seen the maximum possible uptime you can get on a 32 bit linux
> > machine, 497 days.
>
> What happens to the box when it reaches this uptime, does it become
> confused, when the counter gets reset to 0? Must the box be reboot after
> reaching the max uptime (I have a system that is 2 months away from this
> uptime ;)
No, the box as such will be fine, all that happens is that the uptime counter
starts over from 0. Of course that means that if you have any scripts that
use uptime to calculate if things need to be done, they may become confused,
but most things don't, most things use the date to calculate that, and that
won't reset until 2039, so we have another 35 years to fix that :)
>
> BTW: it also shows that the box have not been patches with kernel security
> updates ;)
True, but it was a purely internal machine with no internet access, even
theoretically, so we felt it was secure enough
> Op zondag 5 september 2004 07:23, schreef Anders Johansson:
> > I have seen the maximum possible uptime you can get on a 32 bit linux
> > machine, 497 days.
>
> What happens to the box when it reaches this uptime, does it become
> confused, when the counter gets reset to 0? Must the box be reboot after
> reaching the max uptime (I have a system that is 2 months away from this
> uptime ;)
No, the box as such will be fine, all that happens is that the uptime counter
starts over from 0. Of course that means that if you have any scripts that
use uptime to calculate if things need to be done, they may become confused,
but most things don't, most things use the date to calculate that, and that
won't reset until 2039, so we have another 35 years to fix that :)
>
> BTW: it also shows that the box have not been patches with kernel security
> updates ;)
True, but it was a purely internal machine with no internet access, even
theoretically, so we felt it was secure enough
| < Previous | Next > |