On 2021-02-10 02:58, Semih Ozlem wrote:
Hi everyone,
Is it possible and sensible to install debian or a linux system to an
external hard drive connected to a system via the usb port, while keeping
the current hard drive on the machine unchanged?
Yes, but:
1. Document your CMOS settings. A
Semih Ozlem wrote:
> Is it possible and sensible to install debian or a linux system to an
> external hard drive connected to a system via the usb port, while keeping
> the current hard drive on the machine unchanged?
As a temporary measure, this is reasonable. USB-connected drives
t
Hi everyone,
Is it possible and sensible to install debian or a linux system to an
external hard drive connected to a system via the usb port, while keeping
the current hard drive on the machine unchanged?
Where does one install grub2 and is grub2 to be installed before or after
the installation
> > # while true; do kill -ILL 1 ; echo -n "." ; sleep 0.5 ; done
> >
> > I found out PID 1 is killed when I tried to reboot:
> > # reboot
> > Failed to open /dev/initctl: No such device or address
> > Failed to talk to init daemon.
> >
> > So I will have to use SysReq keys
> >
>
> Can somebody
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 08:35:45AM -0400, Kenneth Parker wrote:
[...]
> Can somebody, please link me to the Documentation Files on those SysReq
> keys? Thanks!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_SysRq_key
Cheers
-- t
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Hello,
> > > > I subscribe to the Devuan Linux mailing list. This posting just
> > > > arrived and it appears quite important to Debian.
> > > >
> > > > Forwarded Message
> > > > Subject: [DNG] Linux system can b
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 10:25:26AM +0300, Reco wrote:
[...]
> Seems harmless to me as one needs to be root to send signals to PID 1.
This is *exactly* the point. If you are root, there are far more creative
(and fun) ways to bring down your system, regardless of how your init
process is called.
to...@tuxteam.de (12019-05-25):
> That means that to send SIGILL to pid 1 you most probably gotta be
> root (systemd or not). And then, there are more classy ways to bring
> your system down anyway.
>
> Folks, please double-check that stuff before reposting. I don't want
> the Debian mailing list
t; > > arrived and it appears quite important to Debian.
> > >
> > > Forwarded Message
> > > Subject: [DNG] Linux system can be brought down by sending
> > > SIGILL to Systemd
> > > Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 22
On 2019-05-25 08:25, Reco wrote:
again no problem here.
Stretch's systemd:
# kill -ILL 1
Message from syslogd@xxx at May 25 10:19:09 ...
systemd[1]: Caught , dumped core as pid 822.
...
systemd[1]: Freezing execution.
The userspace and the kernel will work after this, but anything that's
r
On 2019-05-25, wrote:
>
> Folks, please double-check that stuff before reposting. I don't want
> the Debian mailing list to become Fakebook or Twitter.
>
Or Der Spiegel.
https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/01/der-spiegal-fabrication-scandal-global/579889/
--
“Decisions are
his posting just
> > > arrived and it appears quite important to Debian.
> > >
> > > Forwarded Message
> > > Subject: [DNG] Linux system can be brought down by sending
> > > SIGILL to Systemd
> > > Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 22
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 02:01:35PM -0700, Fred wrote:
> Hello,
> I subscribe to the Devuan Linux mailing list. This posting just
> arrived and it appears quite important to Debian.
[about sending SIGILL to systemd]
This is most probably fake news.
You have to have appropriate permissions to sen
Forwarded Message
> > Subject:[DNG] Linux system can be brought down by sending
> > SIGILL to Systemd
> > Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 22:04:34 +0200
> > From: Martin Steigerwald
> > To: DNG
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi!
&g
On Fri, 24 May 2019 14:01:35 -0700
Fred wrote:
> Hello,
> I subscribe to the Devuan Linux mailing list. This posting just
> arrived and it appears quite important to Debian.
>
> Forwarded Message
> Subject: [DNG] Linux system can be brought down by s
Hello,
I subscribe to the Devuan Linux mailing list. This posting just arrived
and it appears quite important to Debian.
Forwarded Message
Subject: [DNG] Linux system can be brought down by sending SIGILL to
Systemd
Date: Fri, 24 May 2019 22:04:34 +0200
From: Martin
On 23/05/18 11:36, Anhony wrote:
Hi support
Could you please send to me the instructions for using UEFI to install
Linux such a debian, in place of Windows 10 onto a laptop. I have used
BIOS many times, butmy laptop has UEFI and I have no idea how to use it.
I need the instructions from start
Hi support
Could you please send to me the instructions for using UEFI to install
Linux such a debian, in place of Windows 10 onto a laptop. I have used
BIOS many times, butmy laptop has UEFI and I have no idea how to use it.
I need the instructions from start to finish including final saving
On Thu, 05 May 2011 15:56:08 +0200, Alberto Luaces wrote:
> Camaleón writes:
>
>> On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:23:40 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
>>
>>> Problem - How to install Software package on a Linux System when it do
>>> not have Internet ?
>>
>
Camaleón writes:
> On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:23:40 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
>
>> Problem - How to install Software package on a Linux System when it do
>> not have Internet ?
>
> (...)
>
> A very interesting approach for many users! I already forwarded this
>
On Thu, 05 May 2011 16:23:40 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote:
> Problem - How to install Software package on a Linux System when it do
> not have Internet ?
(...)
A very interesting approach for many users! I already forwarded this
project news to another mailing list :-)
Gre
Problem - How to install Software package on a Linux System when it do not
have Internet ?
I know there are multiple solution to this problem.. Here I am giving one
very solution which looks perfect to solve the problem
you can down the script from http://code.google.com/p/debbundle/
What this
In <20090406104245.gb3...@localhost.localdomain>, Chris Bannister wrote:
>/boot/config-xen-linux-system-2.6.26-1-xen-amd64
^^^
>Disclaimer: I've never compiled a zen kernel.
^^^
Careful. Xen is an open-source virtualization tec
Hello all,
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 07:34:38PM +0200, Thomas Schneider wrote:
> I installed a xen system on my server, and it work fine (with
> xen-linux-system-2.6.26-1-xen-amd64). But i need to recompile the kernel to
> optimize some stuff. And the problem is I didn't fo
On Sun, Mar 29, 2009 at 07:34:38PM +0200, Thomas Schneider wrote:
> Hello everybody
>
> I installed a xen system on my server, and it work fine (with
> xen-linux-system-2.6.26-1-xen-amd64). But i need to recompile the kernel to
> optimize some stuff. And the problem is I didn
Hello everybody
I installed a xen system on my server, and it work fine (with
xen-linux-system-2.6.26-1-xen-amd64). But i need to recompile the kernel to
optimize some stuff. And the problem is I didn't found the source, because
when i do apt-get source xen-linux-system-2.6.26-1-xen-amd6
On 10/10/05, Roy Pluschke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 09:02 +, Florian Dorpmueller wrote:
> > >But one thing that I'm not sure and not really know, will windows work OK
> > >if it installed not on the first partition of the disk ?
> > >Even I believe this will work, but b
Hendrik Boom wrote:
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:02:01AM +, Florian Dorpmueller wrote:
But one thing that I'm not sure and not really know, will windows work OK
if it installed not on the first partition of the disk ?
Even I believe this will work, but better be carefull.
--w.h--
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:02:01AM +, Florian Dorpmueller wrote:
> >But one thing that I'm not sure and not really know, will windows work OK
> >if it installed not on the first partition of the disk ?
> >Even I believe this will work, but better be carefull.
> >
> >--w.h--
> >
>
> Possible bu
On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 12:01:56AM -0700, Roy Pluschke wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 12:57 +0700, Ms Linuz wrote:
> > Roy Pluschke wrote:
> >
> > >Is there a howto for dual booting an existing linux system with windows
> > >2000. Everything I've found s
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 09:02 +, Florian Dorpmueller wrote:
> >But one thing that I'm not sure and not really know, will windows work OK
> >if it installed not on the first partition of the disk ?
> >Even I believe this will work, but better be carefull.
> >
> >--w.h--
> >
>
> Possible but not s
But one thing that I'm not sure and not really know, will windows work OK
if it installed not on the first partition of the disk ?
Even I believe this will work, but better be carefull.
--w.h--
Possible but not simple. E.g. you must manually set the drive and Advanced
RISC Computing (ARC) pat
Roy Pluschke wrote:
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 12:57 +0700, Ms Linuz wrote:
Roy Pluschke wrote:
Is there a howto for dual booting an existing linux system with windows
2000. Everything I've found so far assumes windows is installed and
then adding linux -- I'm going the
Yes, on the same disk. I have to somehow reduce the current partition
sizes and add a new partition for windows. I am also concerned that the
windows installation will then screw things up (overwrite the MBR).
Don´t know if it´s suitable for you but I am happy with WIN2k running under
qemu (ht
On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 12:57 +0700, Ms Linuz wrote:
> Roy Pluschke wrote:
>
> >Is there a howto for dual booting an existing linux system with windows
> >2000. Everything I've found so far assumes windows is installed and
> >then adding linux -- I'm going the
Roy Pluschke wrote:
Is there a howto for dual booting an existing linux system with windows
2000. Everything I've found so far assumes windows is installed and
then adding linux -- I'm going the other way -- existing linux system
and having to add windows. Unfortunately the prog
Is there a howto for dual booting an existing linux system with windows
2000. Everything I've found so far assumes windows is installed and
then adding linux -- I'm going the other way -- existing linux system
and having to add windows. Unfortunately the program I need won't p
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:10:39PM -0400, Vivek Kumar wrote:
>
> Any thought on this as far as Linux systems are concerned. What are the
> few things we should take care of ?
Same things you should *always* be taking care of; making sure your
system is patched, up-to-date, and not running unnec
On Thu, Jul 03, 2003 at 12:10:39PM -0400, Vivek Kumar wrote:
> Hi there,
hi,
> Cyber security organizations warned network administrators on Wednesday
> about a Web site hacking contest that appeared to be scheduled to begin
> on Sunday, July 6.
>
> Any thought on this as far as Linux systems a
Hi there,
Cyber security organizations warned network administrators on Wednesday
about a Web site hacking contest that appeared to be scheduled to begin
on Sunday, July 6.
Any thought on this as far as Linux systems are concerned. What are the
few things we should take care of ?
--
V Kumar
hi ya daves
On Sun, 29 Dec 2002, Alan Chandler wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Saturday 28 Dec 2002 9:27 pm, daves debian wrote:
> > I need to move my linux system from drive, /dev/hda to /dev/hdd
> > I know I will have to re-write lilo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Saturday 28 Dec 2002 9:27 pm, daves debian wrote:
> I need to move my linux system from drive, /dev/hda to /dev/hdd
> I know I will have to re-write lilo.conf
>
> Apart from lilo, will the system work in a different hdX ??
>
&
On Sat, 2002-12-28 at 22:27, daves debian wrote:
> I need to move my linux system from drive, /dev/hda to /dev/hdd
> I know I will have to re-write lilo.conf
>
> Apart from lilo, will the system work in a different hdX ??
>
> Anyone had any experience ?? or done it ??
Hi
I need to move my linux system from drive, /dev/hda to /dev/hdd
I know I will have to re-write lilo.conf
Apart from lilo, will the system work in a different hdX ??
Anyone had any experience ?? or done it ??
Thanks
Dave
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of
"David" == David Gaudine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
David> This seems to work. Is there anything "wrong" with doing
David> it this way? Is it appropriate to use run level 5? Is
David> there a list somewhere telling the difference between run
David> levels 2, 3, 4, or 5?
On Tue, 2002-10-08 at 15:33, David Gaudine wrote:
>
> I changed one of my systems to act as an X terminal by changing
> one line of /etc/initab and adding another line as follows:
> id:5:initdefault:
> 7:5:respawn:/usr/X11R6/bin/X -query systemname
>
> This seems to work. Is there anything "wro
I changed one of my systems to act as an X terminal by changing
one line of /etc/initab and adding another line as follows:
id:5:initdefault:
7:5:respawn:/usr/X11R6/bin/X -query systemname
This seems to work. Is there anything "wrong" with doing it this way?
Is it appropriate to use run level 5
Could people share their thoughts on what hardware and software can be
combined to provided the following functionality?
- all free & open source - drivers and applications
- SVideo in/out
- optical audio in/out
- play DVD's from disk, harddrive or over TCP/IP
Janina Sajka wrote:
> Cheryl:
>
> You should not think in terms of transferring your linux. The linux
> operating system itself should be reinstalled.
Crap. This is Unix not Winblows. Copying the entire OS is easy and
almost trivial, as outlined in my previous post and the mentioned HOWTO.
Y
- Original Message -
From: "Cheryl Homiak" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "speakup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2001 3:29 PM
Subject: transfering linux system to another hard drive
> I apologize for the cross-po
Janina Sajka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You should not think in terms of transferring your linux. The linux
> operating system itself should be reinstalled.
That's plainly not true! Why re-doing everything that was already
accomplished? There are several ways to do this, I already mailed this
Hi Cheryl,
Transferring a Linux system is in my experience as simple as copying the
contents.
1. Boot up with a boot disk
2. Mount the source partitions of your failing drive under /src/ (ie
/src/var, /src/usr, ... if you have split up your Linux tree in
partitions) and the destination
Cheryl:
You should not think in terms of transferring your linux. The linux
operating system itself should be reinstalled.
Your data and configuration files, on the other hand, should be
transferred. The best mechanism is likely some kind of temporary storage
device, and an upload to someplace
I apologize for the cross-post, but I'm trying to get info as soon as
possible; even if somebody has just seen this on one of these lists and
can steer me toward the correct archive it would be appreciated.
My hard drive with linux is failing; I have just obtained a 20gig drive
which will have both
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 08:58:50AM -0600, Brooks R. Robinson wrote:
> | Just curious how long people have left their system running
> | without reboot.
> | I once left my server at a co-locate for over 3 months and it ran
> | fine. In
> | three years, I have never had to reboot because of crash.
>
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 03:25:41AM -0600, Colin Watson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 10:18:33AM +0100, Pietro Cagnoni wrote:
> > > i believe that bug was fixed in linux a few years ago.
> > >
> > > theres no longer a 497 day limit ..
> >
> > could someone please tell me for sure? i'm at 470 ri
* Paul McHale <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake thus:
> > spin at all. and with the near 2 dozen IBM disk drive failures
> > ive had in the past 6 months, im even more for never turning
> > off the system.
>
> When I worked PC support contracts at Honeywell, we would always tell people
> to leave the CPU
on Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 02:05:18PM +0200, Tuomas Pellonpera ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> On 15 Nov 2001, John Hasler wrote:
>
> > Dave Sherohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 15/11/2001 (16:53) :
> > > At one time, leaving a machine on overnight consumed less power than
> > > rebooting it (i.e., s
> spin at all. and with the near 2 dozen IBM disk drive failures
> ive had in the past 6 months, im even more for never turning
> off the system.
When I worked PC support contracts at Honeywell, we would always tell people
to leave the CPU (and HD) running. Electrically, there are a lot of
transi
On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 02:05:18PM +0200, Tuomas Pellonpera wrote:
> Does (daily) shutting down and rebooting wear out the hardware more than
> leaving the computer on for days/weeks/months does?
Many electricians have told me that it's better to leave
the system running rather than continually sw
John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Preben writes:
> > Cannot see why it should.
>
> Thermal cycling.
I was told recently that this was not an issue with newer
hardware... d'you happen to know of any recent research on the subject
:-)
Preben writes:
> Cannot see why it should.
Thermal cycling.
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Hasler)
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI
Hi,
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Preben Randhol wrote:
> Tuomas Pellonpera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 16/11/2001 (13:14) :
> > Does (daily) shutting down and rebooting wear out the hardware more than
> > leaving the computer on for days/weeks/months does?
>
> Cannot see why it should. Your harddisc,
Tuomas Pellonpera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 16/11/2001 (13:14) :
> Does (daily) shutting down and rebooting wear out the hardware more than
> leaving the computer on for days/weeks/months does?
Cannot see why it should. Your harddisc, CD-ROMs etc will all stop
spinning which means less friction
On 15 Nov 2001, John Hasler wrote:
> Dave Sherohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 15/11/2001 (16:53) :
> > At one time, leaving a machine on overnight consumed less power than
> > rebooting it (i.e., shutting down and powering back up wasted more
> > resources than just leaving it on). Is that sti
take a look at http://counter.li.org/
there's a link to uptime statistics and a explanation on the 497 days
wrap.
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Paul McHale wrote:
>
> Just curious how long people have left their system running without reboot.
> I once left my server at a co-locate for over 3 months and
Frank Zimmermann said:
> As long as your talking about servers this uptime thing is ok, but
> when talking about workstaions it's redicolous, premature and an
> unjustifiable waste of natural resources. I sometimes think Linux
> users just do this to show their Windows using friends how cool
> the
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 05:50:06PM -0800, nate wrote:
| DvB said:
|
| > Especially the monitor. I have my monitors power down not only to
| > save energy, but also (at least in the case of my home box, which
| > is in my bedroom) because they generate a substantial amount of
| > heat which, in tur
DvB said:
> Especially the monitor. I have my monitors power down not only to
> save energy, but also (at least in the case of my home box, which
> is in my bedroom) because they generate a substantial amount of
> heat which, in turn, makes my A/C run more often and increses my
> power bill (not t
Dave Sherohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 15/11/2001 (16:53) :
> At one time, leaving a machine on overnight consumed less power than
> rebooting it (i.e., shutting down and powering back up wasted more
> resources than just leaving it on). Is that still the case?
It never was.
--
John Hasler
hi ya
> > > theres no longer a 497 day limit ..
> >
> > could someone please tell me for sure? i'm at 470 right now... :-)
>
> Well, if it's not, you could put a sticky saying "Add 497 days to listed
> uptime" on the front. 8:o)
my 2.0.35 kernel machine rolled over a day or two ago..
have oth
We have three Linux boxes at my school-- Dell Optiplex GL+ 5100s with Pentium
1 processors, overclocked from 100mhz to 120 and 130mhz, 16-32 mb ram. They
are always on (about 2 or 3 months now), and have not crashed once yet. :)
-- Deven Gallo
Mike Dresser said:
> I had a system at a remote plant with 300+ days, running 2.2.16,
> that I finally had to pull the plug on when we sold the plant. It
> was very tempting to take it and the attached UPS back to the
> office, to see how long it would have ran. =)
ive done that.. i moved to a
Dave Sherohman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 15/11/2001 (16:53) :
> At one time, leaving a machine on overnight consumed less power than
> rebooting it (i.e., shutting down and powering back up wasted more
> resources than just leaving it on). Is that still the case?
This cannot be right. We are n
Tom Pfeifer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 15/11/2001 (13:27) :
>
> I agree. It's not like this has to be proven any longer. Linux will
> basically run forever unless interrupted by power failure or hardware
> failure.
Or crackers. :-(
Preben
--
«Don't use C; In my opinion, C is a library prog
> recompiling the whole kernel, though, which may be what you're
> > remembering.
>
> This functionality in HP-UX is essentially the same as changing stuff
> in /proc on a linux system.
Indeed, and it's substantially more awkward at that.
--
Colin Watson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
s I can tell)
> recompiling the whole kernel, though, which may be what you're
> remembering.
This functionality in HP-UX is essentially the same as changing stuff
in /proc on a linux system.
--
Nathan Norman - Staff Engineer | A good plan today is better
Micromuse Ltd.
On 15 Nov 2001, Mike Dresser wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Brooks R. Robinson wrote:
>
> > There was a post from Will Trillich on sept 14 about his box being up just
> > over a year. I bet it's still going. I have a postgresql database server
> > that gets constant use that has not had a h
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 11:29:37AM -0600, DvB wrote:
> Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[on-the-fly kernel upgrades]
> > Not as far as I know. It's rather difficult in a monolithic kernel (QNX
> > is a microkernel).
>
> For some reason, I'm thinking HP-UX can do this... or am I totally off
"Johnny Ernst Nielsen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >As long as your talking about servers this uptime thing is ok, but
> >when talking about workstaions it's redicolous, premature and an
> >unjustifiable waste of natural resources. I sometimes think Linux
> >users just do this to show the
Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 11:29:35AM +0100, op wrote:
> > Also sprach Colin Watson:
> > > It's a shame we aren't like QNX
> > > yet and can't upgrade the kernel on the fly.
> > ^^^
> >
> > Is this a feature that's up for discussion in 2.5?
>
> Not as fa
"Paul McHale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Just curious how long people have left their system running without reboot.
> I once left my server at a co-locate for over 3 months and it ran fine. In
> three years, I have never had to reboot because of crash.
>
> I have rebooted about once every 3
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 12:52:58AM -0500, Paul McHale wrote:
> Just curious how long people have left their system running without reboot.
> I once left my server at a co-locate for over 3 months and it ran fine. In
> three years, I have never had to reboot because of crash.
If this sort of thing
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 05:44:02AM +, root wrote:
> this topic is inherently redundant. if the system environment justifies
> staying up, it stays up. if not, staying up is a waste of resources. can
> we close this before the group is reduced to redundancy itself?
*sigh* You seem to have comp
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Brooks R. Robinson wrote:
> There was a post from Will Trillich on sept 14 about his box being up just
> over a year. I bet it's still going. I have a postgresql database server
> that gets constant use that has not had a hiccup in 67 days. I don't recall
> why I rebooted
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> "Paul McHale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Just curious how long people have left their system
> > running without reboot.
This is the best I (our workgroup) has up til now:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ uptime
4:32pm up 178 days, 8:48, 1 use
| Just curious how long people have left their system running
| without reboot.
| I once left my server at a co-locate for over 3 months and it ran
| fine. In
| three years, I have never had to reboot because of crash.
|
| I have rebooted about once every 3 to 4 months (guessing average) after
| m
"Paul McHale" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Just curious how long people have left their system
> running without reboot.
I had a box set up at work for a couple of years that did webserver (intranet),
ftp, and Samba duties. It was taken down... permanently... ;-(
I did get this though:
[
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Pietro Cagnoni wrote:
> > theres no longer a 497 day limit ..
>
> could someone please tell me for sure? i'm at 470 right now... :-)
Well, if it's not, you could put a sticky saying "Add 497 days to listed
uptime" on the front. 8:o)
--
Baloo
On Thu, 15 Nov 2001, Paul McHale wrote:
> (dedicated server mail/ftp/web). Anyone have any really long times for X
> and non-X systems?
172 days is the best I've ever done, the power around Portland craps out
whenever California taps us dry. (Which reminds me, pay your $128
million already, Cal
this topic is inherently redundant. if the system environment justifies
staying up, it stays up. if not, staying up is a waste of resources. can
we close this before the group is reduced to redundancy itself?
Tom Massey wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 11:19:00AM +, Frank Zimmermann wrote:
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 11:19:00AM +, Frank Zimmermann wrote:
> As long as your talking about servers this uptime thing is ok, but
> when talking about workstaions it's redicolous, premature and an
> unjustifiable waste of natural resources.
Is it really? Just thinking in terms of wastage
Frank Zimmermann wrote:
>
> >Just curious how long people have left their system running without reboot.
> >I once left my server at a co-locate for over 3 months and it ran fine. In
> >three years, I have never had to reboot because of crash.
> >
> >I have rebooted about once every 3 to 4 months
>>Just curious how long people have left their system running without reboot.
>>I once left my server at a co-locate for over 3 months and it ran fine.
In
>>three years, I have never had to reboot because of crash.
[snip]
>>
>>Paul
>>
>
>As long as your talking about servers this uptime thing is
On Thu, 2001-11-15 at 12:19, Frank Zimmermann wrote:
> As long as your talking about servers this uptime thing is ok, but
> when talking about workstaions it's redicolous, premature and an
> unjustifiable waste of natural resources. I sometimes think Linux
> users just do this to show their Wind
Just curious how long people have left their system running without reboot.
I once left my server at a co-locate for over 3 months and it ran fine. In
three years, I have never had to reboot because of crash.
I have rebooted about once every 3 to 4 months (guessing average) after
maintenance. T
nate wrote:
Johnny Ernst Nielsen said:
I think the uptime counter counts up to 497 days, and then it
starts all over again. So currently we would not have any reports
positively documenting more than 497 days of uptime.
I read somewhere that the time is counted in "jiffies" where one
i bel
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 03:25:41AM -0600, Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 10:18:33AM +0100, Pietro Cagnoni wrote:
>
I think the uptime counter counts up to 497 days, and then it
starts all over again. So currently we would not have any reports
posi
On Thu, Nov 15, 2001 at 11:29:35AM +0100, op wrote:
> Also sprach Colin Watson:
> > It's a shame we aren't like QNX
> > yet and can't upgrade the kernel on the fly.
> ^^^
>
> Is this a feature that's up for discussion in 2.5?
Not as far as I know. It's rather difficult in a monolithic kernel (Q
Also sprach Colin Watson:
> It's a shame we aren't like QNX
> yet and can't upgrade the kernel on the fly.
^^^
Is this a feature that's up for discussion in 2.5?
It would be a great thing.
op
--
Try to have as good a life as you can under the circumstances.
1 - 100 of 173 matches
Mail list logo
