lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2001]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: 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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:18    [W:0.206 / U:2.628 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site