[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
Subject[OT] Re: Nasty suprise with uptime
Jan Dvorak wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 12:39:37PM -0800, J Sloan wrote:
> > 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?
> Rather, you should think about your poor hw. It's nice to sit down at least once
> a year, to clean up your box of that spider/ant feudalistic colonies, bug
> airports, to check connectors, upgrade some components, and other such things
> which you can't risk doing online at 32bit platform. You know, there are
> some x86s which wasn't projected to even LAST as long as one year :-)

Certainly a point -

It's not too unreasonable to bring down a
server for maintenance every 16 months.

However this is good, expensive hardware...

Consider HP-UX 10.20, a 32-bit, 1996 vintage
commercial unix, in many ways somewhat
primitive compared to Linux:

root@zinc:/root# uname -a
HP-UX zinc B.10.20 U 9000/800 2003576880 unlimited-user license
root@zinc:/root# uptime
3:24pm up 681 days, 6:43, 12 users, load average: 1.17, 1.15, 1.15

So clearly, it's not rocket science....



To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:12    [W:0.126 / U:0.068 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site