Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 30 Oct 2001 00:49:45 -0800 | From | george anzinger <> | Subject | Re: Nasty suprise with uptime |
| |
J Sloan wrote: > > Mike Fedyk wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 12:31:12PM -0800, J Sloan wrote: > > > Say it ain't so! maybe I'm a bit dense, but is the 2.4 kernel also going > > > to wrap around after 497 days uptime? I'd be glad if someone would > > > point out the error in my understanding. > > > > Ahh, so that's why there haven't been any reports of higher uptimes... ;) > > Yes, it all makes sense now - > > Say, if the uptime field were unsigned it could > reach 995 days uptime before wraparound -
Actually 497 days is from the max jiffies in an unsigned int. Up time converts this to seconds... (HZ = 100) jiffies units are 1/HZ.
George
> > Surely nobody would mind having to upgrade > their kernel after 994+ days.... > > Well strictly speaking an upgrade isn't > forced, but if the (perceived) uptime is down > the tubes anyway, might as well update the > kernel, or the distro level for that matter. > > 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/ - 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/
| |