On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Gustav Schaffter wrote:
[snip]
>
> Do you really mean they don't have their own PCs? My son is four years
> old and I've just upgraded his PC from DOS (can power off :-0 to Linux
> (duct tape over power switch ;-).
>
> He loves Gcompris but misses the Pinball game he run under
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Gustav Schaffter wrote:
> > It's been up continuiously since I upgraded to the 2.4.0 kernel. The
> > notable thing about mine is that there is no UPS and I live in California,
> > and this is my desktop system, that my 5 year old and 3 year old pound on
> > and play games on
Thornton Prime wrote:
> It's been up continuiously since I upgraded to the 2.4.0 kernel. The
> notable thing about mine is that there is no UPS and I live in California,
> and this is my desktop system, that my 5 year old and 3 year old pound on
> and play games on.
Do you really mean they don'
> At 05:33 PM 2/22/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >I couldn't resist...
> >
> >/home/rmadison$ uptime
> > 5:23pm up 155 days, 1:14, 27 users, load average: 0.34, 0.38, 0.40
> >/home/rmadison$
> >Seriously though, I agree 100% with Gustav. I have administered some
older
> >SunOS boxes that had been
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> At 05:33 PM 2/22/2001 -0500, you wrote:
> >I couldn't resist...
> >
> >/home/rmadison$ uptime
> > 5:23pm up 155 days, 1:14, 27 users, load average: 0.34, 0.38, 0.40
> >/home/rmadison$
> >Seriously though, I agree 100% with Gustav. I have administ
On Fri, 23 Feb 2001, Statux wrote:
> holy crap.. that's one of the kernel-level processes too. is that system
> running a kernel that you compiled (I would hope you would compile yer
> own for a server)? Actually, doing math on that number suggests that it's
> a bogus value... but still interesti
Statux wrote:
> is that system
> running a kernel that you compiled (I would hope you would compile yer
> own for a server)?
Yes, several times, several versions. They all showed the same
'feature'.
> Actually, doing math on that number suggests that it's
> a bogus value... but still inte
holy crap.. that's one of the kernel-level processes too. is that system
running a kernel that you compiled (I would hope you would compile yer
own for a server)? Actually, doing math on that number suggests that it's
a bogus value... but still interesting. I was actually talking more ont he
lines
Statux wrote:
> (HINT: they'll be the ones with the CPU times that
> look like 456:00, etc, hehe). Most processes don't use more than a few
> seconds of CPU.
You mean, the fact that my RH5.2 server has the following process:
USER PID %CPU %MEM SIZE RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND
r
> > [root@fantasy /root]# uptime
> > 3:54pm up 261 days, 4:51, 14 users, load average: 1.08, 1.08, 1.15
> > [root@fantasy /root]#
That's some high load you got there ;) Remember to be on the look out for
runaway processes. (HINT: they'll be the ones with the CPU times that
look like 456:00,
Warren Melnick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> [root@fantasy /root]# uptime
> 3:54pm up 261 days, 4:51, 14 users, load average: 1.08, 1.08, 1.15
> [root@fantasy /root]#
>
> Does that help?
>
> This is a RedHat 5.2 box (2.2.14, Pentium) that hosts shells.
> Lots of
> eggdrops, bouncers, etc
I have two linux machines that have been up since July. They were
shut down because one of the apartments above our business
had an electrical fire. We got them shutdown before the
ups ran out of battery. Before that they had 9 months from
its original install without a problem.
Li
I was once shown the uptime of a system. Unless I've lost my mind, it was
400+ days... I wanna say it was one of the BSD implementations... maybe
FreeBSD... this was a while ago and I can't say for sure if this is right.
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Michael
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Thornton Prime wrote:
>
> >
> > The only legitimate reason for rebooting a Unix system would be for a
> > kernel upgrade.
> >
> > Anything else should and is viewed as a bug in the OS.
> >
> > thornton
> >
> I don't know abou
At 05:33 PM 2/22/2001 -0500, you wrote:
>I couldn't resist...
>
>/home/rmadison$ uptime
> 5:23pm up 155 days, 1:14, 27 users, load average: 0.34, 0.38, 0.40
>/home/rmadison$
>Seriously though, I agree 100% with Gustav. I have administered some older
>SunOS boxes that had been up so long, that
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Thornton Prime wrote:
>
> The only legitimate reason for rebooting a Unix system would be for a
> kernel upgrade.
>
> Anything else should and is viewed as a bug in the OS.
>
> thornton
>
I don't know about that. I consider adding/removing/changing
most hardware to be a reas
The only legitimate reason for rebooting a Unix system would be for a
kernel upgrade.
Anything else should and is viewed as a bug in the OS.
thornton
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Mahalakshmi wrote:
>
> here's a problem 'bout unix .
>
> Is there any limitation for UNIX machines that they should be re
I couldn't resist...
/home/rmadison$ uptime
5:23pm up 155 days, 1:14, 27 users, load average: 0.34, 0.38, 0.40
/home/rmadison$
Surely someone can beat that...
Seriously though, I agree 100% with Gustav. I have administered some older
SunOS boxes that had been up so long, that they forgot
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Michael R. Jinks spewed into the bitstream:
MRJ>A quick look around home and office shows at least three machines (one
MRJ>Linux and two OpenBSD) with uptimes above 50 days. Sort of disappointed
MRJ>that I couldn't find anything longer but I tinker a lot.
My best ones right
> A quick look around home and office shows at least three machines (one
> Linux and two OpenBSD) with uptimes above 50 days. Sort of disappointed
> that I couldn't find anything longer but I tinker a lot.
Here is uptime on one of my mainline web servers:
# uptime
1:14pm up 355 days,
and
]
Subject: Re: unix sys
Mahalakshmi wrote:
> > Is there any limitation for UNIX machines that they should be restarted
> > after n days.
Nope.
> > Windows crashes automatically
I love that expression!
> > if the m/c is not switched off
> > for 49.7 days and
Mikkel,
"Mikkel L. Ellertson" wrote:
>
> On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Gustav Schaffter wrote:
>
> > For Linux, the rules of thumb(s?) is:
> >
> > - Reboot whenever you need to upgrade to a new release of your
> > distribution or a new release of the kernel.
> >
> > - Many hardware upgrades will require
For Linux, the rules of thumb(s?) is:
- Reboot whenever you need to upgrade to a new release of your
distribution or a new release of the kernel.
- Many hardware upgrades will require a reboot. (Still, in some of my
systems I plug in and out monitors, mice and keyboards without even
thinking of
Mahalakshmi wrote:
> > Is there any limitation for UNIX machines that they should be restarted
> > after n days.
Nope.
> > Windows crashes automatically
I love that expression!
> > if the m/c is not switched off
> > for 49.7 days and this is accepted by Microsoft.
(This may be inaccurate f
On Thu, 22 Feb 2001, Gustav Schaffter wrote:
> For Linux, the rules of thumb(s?) is:
>
> - Reboot whenever you need to upgrade to a new release of your
> distribution or a new release of the kernel.
>
> - Many hardware upgrades will require a reboot. (Still, in some of my
> systems I plug in and
25 matches
Mail list logo
