uptime

uptime

Post by mlw » Thu, 04 Jul 2002 19:03:17



Linux im1 2.2.14-5.0smp #1 SMP Tue Mar 7 21:01:40 EST 2000 i686 unknown
  1:01pm  up 398 days,  9:10,  1 user,  load average: 0.06, 0.07, 0.02

One of the servers in my webfarm

 
 
 

uptime

Post by rapska » Thu, 04 Jul 2002 20:13:38


Error Log for Wed, 03 Jul 2002 13:03:17 -0400: segfault in module "mlw" -
dump details are as follows...

Quote:> Linux im1 2.2.14-5.0smp #1 SMP Tue Mar 7 21:01:40 EST 2000 i686 unknown
>   1:01pm  up 398 days,  9:10,  1 user,  load average: 0.06, 0.07, 0.02

> One of the servers in my webfarm

Wasn't there a bug somewhere that caused the uptime count >400 days or
something like that to be reset to zero?

Is there a workaround for this?  Or was that just with older versions?

--
rapskat -   2:10pm  up 17 days, 16:42,  8 users,  load average: 0.93, 1.13, 1.22
146 processes: 141 sleeping, 4 running, 1 zombie, 0 stopped
CPU states:  1.2% user,  1.1% system,  0.0% nice,  2.0% idle
drop the hot to mail me

If M$ made a car, would it have to be restarted when someone got in?

 
 
 

uptime

Post by kyi » Thu, 04 Jul 2002 20:46:56



> Error Log for Wed, 03 Jul 2002 13:03:17 -0400: segfault in module "mlw" -
> dump details are as follows...

>> Linux im1 2.2.14-5.0smp #1 SMP Tue Mar 7 21:01:40 EST 2000 i686 unknown
>>   1:01pm  up 398 days,  9:10,  1 user,  load average: 0.06, 0.07, 0.02

>> One of the servers in my webfarm

> Wasn't there a bug somewhere that caused the uptime count >400 days or
> something like that to be reset to zero?

> Is there a workaround for this?  Or was that just with older versions?

I'm not 100% sure but I think that only affects the 2.4+ series kernels.

- kyi

 
 
 

uptime

Post by cybea » Thu, 04 Jul 2002 21:14:13




>> Error Log for Wed, 03 Jul 2002 13:03:17 -0400: segfault in module "mlw" -
>> dump details are as follows...

>>> Linux im1 2.2.14-5.0smp #1 SMP Tue Mar 7 21:01:40 EST 2000 i686 unknown
>>>   1:01pm  up 398 days,  9:10,  1 user,  load average: 0.06, 0.07, 0.02

>>> One of the servers in my webfarm

>> Wasn't there a bug somewhere that caused the uptime count >400 days or
>> something like that to be reset to zero?

>> Is there a workaround for this?  Or was that just with older versions?

> I'm not 100% sure but I think that only affects the 2.4+ series kernels.

> - kyi

I think it affects 32 bit kernels and the basic minimum time unit tracked.
It has to do with how much time you can track with 32 bits. I think the 64
bit systems use 64 bits to track uptime... I don't think any of us will be
here when a 64 bit uptime clock rolls over.
 
 
 

uptime

Post by Jim Richardso » Thu, 04 Jul 2002 21:36:59


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 14:13:38 -0400,


> Error Log for Wed, 03 Jul 2002 13:03:17 -0400: segfault in module "mlw" -
> dump details are as follows...

>> Linux im1 2.2.14-5.0smp #1 SMP Tue Mar 7 21:01:40 EST 2000 i686 unknown
>>   1:01pm  up 398 days,  9:10,  1 user,  load average: 0.06, 0.07, 0.02

>> One of the servers in my webfarm

> Wasn't there a bug somewhere that caused the uptime count >400 days or
> something like that to be reset to zero?

> Is there a workaround for this?  Or was that just with older versions?

The jiffy counter wraps on 32bit systems at 497days. I don't *think* it
does it on 64bit systems, but it may do so there as well. This is
similar to the windows problem of crashing on 49.7 days experienced by
some (some because few made it that far) W9X systems. Linux doesn't
crash like windows does when the jiffy counter rolls over of course. But
that's to be expected.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE9I1Jbd90bcYOAWPYRAhFCAKCFjmGEBbvzJeL0QqVBwFHSY2iLhwCfYNSA
JV4AtmgxaHzYepvYcnNnTB0=
=1FMY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--
Jim Richardson
        Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, from watches to supercomputers, for grandmas and geeks.

 
 
 

uptime

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Thu, 04 Jul 2002 22:18:26




>> Linux im1 2.2.14-5.0smp #1 SMP Tue Mar 7 21:01:40 EST 2000 i686
>> unknown   1:01pm  up 398 days,  9:10,  1 user,  load average: 0.06,
>> 0.07, 0.02

>> One of the servers in my webfarm

> That is beautiful. I don't think there is an M$ computer anywhere
> close to that.

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=MICROSOFT,131.107.0.0,13...
55.255&order=max

You were saying?

 
 
 

uptime

Post by Paul Cook » Thu, 04 Jul 2002 23:24:24



> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1

> On Wed, 03 Jul 2002 14:13:38 -0400,

>> Error Log for Wed, 03 Jul 2002 13:03:17 -0400: segfault in module "mlw" -
>> dump details are as follows...

>>> Linux im1 2.2.14-5.0smp #1 SMP Tue Mar 7 21:01:40 EST 2000 i686 unknown
>>>   1:01pm  up 398 days,  9:10,  1 user,  load average: 0.06, 0.07, 0.02

>>> One of the servers in my webfarm

>> Wasn't there a bug somewhere that caused the uptime count >400 days or
>> something like that to be reset to zero?

>> Is there a workaround for this?  Or was that just with older versions?

> The jiffy counter wraps on 32bit systems at 497days. I don't *think* it
> does it on 64bit systems, but it may do so there as well. This is
> similar to the windows problem of crashing on 49.7 days experienced by
> some (some because few made it that far) W9X systems. Linux doesn't
> crash like windows does when the jiffy counter rolls over of course. But
> that's to be expected.

well, we've only got 99 days left now to find out if this Jiffy counter
rollover behaviour is true...

--
Paul Cooke
  Registered Linux user 273897 Machine registration number 156819
  Linux Counter: Home Page = http://counter.li.org/

 
 
 

uptime

Post by yt.. » Thu, 04 Jul 2002 22:34:16





>>> Linux im1 2.2.14-5.0smp #1 SMP Tue Mar 7 21:01:40 EST 2000 i686
>>> unknown   1:01pm  up 398 days,  9:10,  1 user,  load average: 0.06,
>>> 0.07, 0.02

>>> One of the servers in my webfarm

>> That is beautiful. I don't think there is an M$ computer anywhere
>> close to that.
> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=MICROSOFT,131.107.0.0,13...
> 55.255&order=max
> You were saying?

Oh look, eric *still* doesnt know the difference between a single node and
a cluster.

Note the following, at #1:

1  tide03.microsoft.com   81   625   80  BSD/OS  unknown

Blah.  Eric is still a moron.

-----.

--
"Hell, rocket science isn't even rocket science"
--A NASA rocket scientist, undernet, circa 1996

 
 
 

uptime

Post by Johan Lindquis » Thu, 04 Jul 2002 22:39:07


Wed, 03 Jul 2002 at 22:18 GMT, peering quizzically at his shoes,



>>> unknown 1:01pm up 398 days, 9:10, 1 user, load average: 0.06,

>> That is beautiful. I don't think there is an M$ computer anywhere
>> close to that.

> <http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=MICROSOFT,131.107.0.0,13... 55.255&order=max>

Yes, BSD /is/ a very stable platform. Good choice by ms there.

--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.      Perth ---> *
 10:29pm  up 3 days,  7:11,  1 user,  load average: 1.19, 1.25, 1.24
$ cat /dev/bollocks                      Registered Linux user #261729
scale mission-critical portals

 
 
 

uptime

Post by Ian Pege » Thu, 04 Jul 2002 23:21:56


For it was written by cybear:



>>> Error Log for Wed, 03 Jul 2002 13:03:17 -0400: segfault in module
>>> "mlw" - dump details are as follows...

>>>> Linux im1 2.2.14-5.0smp #1 SMP Tue Mar 7 21:01:40 EST 2000 i686
>>>> unknown
>>>>   1:01pm  up 398 days,  9:10,  1 user,  load average: 0.06, 0.07,
>>>>   0.02

>>>> One of the servers in my webfarm

>>> Wasn't there a bug somewhere that caused the uptime count >400 days or
>>> something like that to be reset to zero?

>>> Is there a workaround for this?  Or was that just with older versions?

>> I'm not 100% sure but I think that only affects the 2.4+ series
>> kernels.

>> - kyi

> I think it affects 32 bit kernels and the basic minimum time unit
> tracked. It has to do with how much time you can track with 32 bits. I
> think the 64 bit systems use 64 bits to track uptime... I don't think
> any of us will be here when a 64 bit uptime clock rolls over.

maybe in another lifetime, perhaps...

--

Ian - looking through a glass onion

 
 
 

uptime

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Thu, 04 Jul 2002 23:51:00






>>>> Linux im1 2.2.14-5.0smp #1 SMP Tue Mar 7 21:01:40 EST 2000 i686
>>>> unknown   1:01pm  up 398 days,  9:10,  1 user,  load average: 0.06,
>>>> 0.07, 0.02

>>>> One of the servers in my webfarm

>>> That is beautiful. I don't think there is an M$ computer anywhere
>>> close to that.

http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=MICROSOFT,131.107.0.0,13...

Quote:>> 55.255&order=max

>> You were saying?

> Oh look, eric *still* doesnt know the difference between a single
> node and a cluster.

> Note the following, at #1:

> 1  tide03.microsoft.com   81   625   80  BSD/OS  unknown

> Blah.  Eric is still a moron.

You still don't understand that clusters have nothing to do with the uptime
of a single machine.  Netcraft can't get the uptime for the cluster, it can
only retrieve the uptime for an individual machine.  That's why when
clusters are used (as in www.microsoft.com, or www.hotmail.com ) the uptimes
are all over the board.
 
 
 

uptime

Post by Erik Funkenbusc » Thu, 04 Jul 2002 23:52:24



> Wed, 03 Jul 2002 at 22:18 GMT, peering quizzically at his shoes,



>>>> unknown 1:01pm up 398 days, 9:10, 1 user, load average: 0.06,

>>> That is beautiful. I don't think there is an M$ computer anywhere
>>> close to that.

<http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=MICROSOFT,131.107.0.0,13....
2 55.255&order=max>

Quote:

> Yes, BSD /is/ a very stable platform. Good choice by ms there.

You didn't look at the rest of them, now did you?
 
 
 

uptime

Post by GreyClou » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 07:08:59





> >> Linux im1 2.2.14-5.0smp #1 SMP Tue Mar 7 21:01:40 EST 2000 i686
> >> unknown   1:01pm  up 398 days,  9:10,  1 user,  load average: 0.06,
> >> 0.07, 0.02

> >> One of the servers in my webfarm

> > That is beautiful. I don't think there is an M$ computer anywhere
> > close to that.

> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=MICROSOFT,131.107.0.0,13...
> 55.255&order=max

> You were saying?

Oh, you mean all those itty bitty boxes running IIS claiming
to be servers???

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

 
 
 

uptime

Post by GreyClou » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 07:09:56







> >>>> Linux im1 2.2.14-5.0smp #1 SMP Tue Mar 7 21:01:40 EST 2000 i686
> >>>> unknown   1:01pm  up 398 days,  9:10,  1 user,  load average: 0.06,
> >>>> 0.07, 0.02

> >>>> One of the servers in my webfarm

> >>> That is beautiful. I don't think there is an M$ computer anywhere
> >>> close to that.

> http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/hosted?netname=MICROSOFT,131.107.0.0,13...
> >> 55.255&order=max

> >> You were saying?

> > Oh look, eric *still* doesnt know the difference between a single
> > node and a cluster.

> > Note the following, at #1:

> > 1  tide03.microsoft.com   81   625   80  BSD/OS  unknown

> > Blah.  Eric is still a moron.

> You still don't understand that clusters have nothing to do with the uptime
> of a single machine.  Netcraft can't get the uptime for the cluster, it can
> only retrieve the uptime for an individual machine.  That's why when
> clusters are used (as in www.microsoft.com, or www.hotmail.com ) the uptimes
> are all over the board.

Which leaves netcraft in a dubious position.
Can you really gather any useful data from such a group??
 
 
 

uptime

Post by Johan Lindquis » Fri, 05 Jul 2002 09:29:06


Wed, 03 Jul 2002 at 23:52 GMT, peering quizzically at his shoes,


>> Wed, 03 Jul 2002 at 22:18 GMT, peering quizzically at his shoes,



>>>>> unknown 1:01pm up 398 days, 9:10, 1 user, load average: 0.06,

>>>> That is beautiful. I don't think there is an M$ computer anywhere
>>>> close to that.

<snip long link we've all seen by now>

Quote:>> Yes, BSD /is/ a very stable platform. Good choice by ms there.

> You didn't look at the rest of them, now did you?

What about them? Did you think you scored a point by taking that silly
bait, or what? You don't find it slightly ironic that the very example
you used had a non-ms system sitting at the top?

Did you look at the top 20 (or whatever it was) uptimes someone
posted? (You may note that the highest score is actually held by the
used-to-be-government-operated still-basically-a-monopoly swedish
phone company, btw. Makes you proud, if only they weren't such
*s wrt pricing policies and more.)

--
Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana.      Perth ---> *
  9:15am  up 3 days, 17:58,  3 users,  load average: 1.19, 1.23, 1.21
$ cat /dev/bollocks                      Registered Linux user #261729
expedite impactful technologies

 
 
 

1. Uptime rollover, How to tell real uptime?

I have a linux system running 1.2.8  gcc 2.6.3 compiled Dec 28 95
According to the var/adm/messages file it was last booted on
Jan. 2, 1996. This would put the uptime at around 800 days.

Somewhere after 460 days the uptime counter must have rolled over
as the uptime given with "w" started again with low numbers.

I know it was not rebooted as there are daemons running that I started
by hand and are not in scripts.

Is there a way to get the real uptime?

Also I plan to shut it down soon as I am getting scared of fire
hazard due to lots of dust. The internal fan went out a year ago
and I have hung another fan on the back for cooling.

Is this maybe a record uptime??
Dale
=================================================================

Phone:(916)356-5332                     I speak only for myself
=====================================================================

2. How can a program change /etc/passwd * to ! in password field?

3. How does uptime.netcraft.com know my uptime?

4. Yggdrasil_Fall94 Bad install or HW display freeze

5. Segfaults on Server after long uptime using 2.2.x

6. Linux and windows 2000

7. longest uptime

8. Welcome to comp.unix.shell [Frequent posting]

9. How to check for uptime in KDE ?

10. Longest reported uptime??

11. enable uptime display > 497 days

12. High uptimes

13. How to prevent "apm" from turning off hard drive during uptime?