Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 29 Oct 2001 12:47:53 -0800 | From | Matthew Dharm <> | Subject | Re: Nasty suprise with uptime |
| |
No, but there are a couple of applicable Linux policies: (1) If it breaks, you get to keep both halves. (2) If it's broken, fix it yourself.
:)
Matt
On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 12:39:37PM -0800, J Sloan wrote: > 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 > > - > 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/
-- Matthew Dharm Home: mdharm-usb@one-eyed-alien.net Maintainer, Linux USB Mass Storage Driver
NYET! The evil stops here! -- Pitr User Friendly, 6/22/1998 [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |  |