after 231 days uptime, what happens?

after 231 days uptime, what happens?

Post by Jay G. Sco » Tue, 22 Sep 1998 04:00:00



I've had a 2.6 machine go past 231 days of uptime without
apparent incident.  I know it used to be a problem,
since 231*24*3600*100 is about 2 billion, which
is magic as we know.  But I can't remember what the
problem was.  Did it go away at 2.6?

j.
--

Head of Sun Support, Sr. Operating Systems Specialist
Applied Research Labs, Computer Science Div.
University of Texas at Austin

 
 
 

after 231 days uptime, what happens?

Post by Alan Coopersmi » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00



Quote:>I've had a 2.6 machine go past 231 days of uptime without
>apparent incident.  I know it used to be a problem,
>since 231*24*3600*100 is about 2 billion, which
>is magic as we know.  But I can't remember what the
>problem was.  Did it go away at 2.6?

There was a bug with a counter overflowing after ~240 days that was
fixed in patches to 2.5.x, and presumably in 2.6.

--
________________________________________________________________________

Univ. of California at Berkeley         http://soar.Berkeley.EDU/~alanc/


 
 
 

after 231 days uptime, what happens?

Post by Casper H.S. Dik - Network Security Engine » Wed, 23 Sep 1998 04:00:00


[[ PLEASE DON'T SEND ME EMAIL COPIES OF POSTINGS ]]



>>I've had a 2.6 machine go past 231 days of uptime without
>>apparent incident.  I know it used to be a problem,
>>since 231*24*3600*100 is about 2 billion, which
>>is magic as we know.  But I can't remember what the
>>problem was.  Did it go away at 2.6?
>There was a bug with a counter overflowing after ~240 days that was
>fixed in patches to 2.5.x, and presumably in 2.6.

2^31 = 248 days.

It is patched in older releases but fixed in 2.6.

In 2.6., it's also possibel to set the system clock to 1000Hz, the
problem would have appeared in 24.8 days and that  is a bit quick.

Casper
--
Expressed in this posting are my opinions.  They are in no way related
to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems.
Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may
be fiction rather than truth.

 
 
 

1. checksum.S:231: badly punctuated parameter list in #define

I'm trying to build the 2.2.17 kernel and I get:

make[1]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux/arch/i386/lib'
make all_targets
make[2]: Entering directory `/usr/src/linux/arch/i386/lib'
cc -D__KERNEL__ -I/usr/src/linux/include -D__ASSEMBLY__  -traditional -c
checksum.S -o checksum.o
checksum.S:231: badly punctuated parameter list in #define
checksum.S:237: badly punctuated parameter list in #define
make[2]: *** [checksum.o] Error 1
make[2]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux/arch/i386/lib'
make[1]: *** [first_rule] Error 2
make[1]: Leaving directory `/usr/src/linux/arch/i386/lib'
make: *** [_dir_arch/i386/lib] Error 2

and those lines look like this:

    227 #define SRC(y...)                       \
    228         9999: y;                        \
    229         .section __ex_table, "a";       \
    230         .long 9999b, 6001f      ;       \
    231         .previous
    232
    233 #define DST(y...)                       \
    234         9999: y;                        \
    235         .section __ex_table, "a";       \
    236         .long 9999b, 6002f      ;       \
    237         .previous

I'm running a redhat 6.2 system which I "upgraded" redhat 7.0 with the
upgrade option on the install CD.  The above is some mighty strange
looking code.  My system is a P-III/128mb  Anyone have any idea how to fix
this?

C. W. Wright

2. Writing to stderr.

3. two 2.4.21-rc7 BUGs (inode.c:562 / page_alloc.c:231)

4. BOCA Voyager using C&T64300 Chipset

5. Driver for Sony CDB-231?

6. Bourne shell: splitting filename into base and extension

7. Sony CD-231 Adapter

8. aix cde and notepad

9. enable uptime display > 497 days

10. ``Uptime: 3335040 days'' Hmmm.

11. [rfc] enable uptime display > 497 days on 32 bit

12. time() glitch on 2.4.18 at 177 days uptime?

13. uptime 8492 days