Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 20 Apr 2001 21:23:38 -0500
From:      Steve Price <steve@FreeBSD.ORG>
To:        "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed@reedmedia.net>
Cc:        advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: top uptime!
Message-ID:  <20010420212338.Z41536@bsd.havk.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0104201716040.17317-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net>; from reed@reedmedia.net on Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 05:38:21PM -0700
References:  <20010421093009.M72002@wantadilla.lemis.com> <Pine.LNX.4.21.0104201716040.17317-100000@pilchuck.reedmedia.net>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Apr 20, 2001 at 05:38:21PM -0700, Jeremy C. Reed wrote:

> > > I ran Linux 2.0.36 for 497 days. It had some known 497-day bug (jiffy
> > > problem?) that crashed it with a kernel panic.
> > 
> > Is it possible that this bug was fixed less than 595 days ago?  That
> > seems to be the only sensible explanation I can find for Linux'
> > complete absence from this list.

This topic came up just yesterday on a Linux user's group list that
I'm listen in on here in town.  A guy who I believe to be very
knowlegable about Linux (especially RedHat, he even willingly bought
a red fedorra) said that the bug that caused Linux to crash after
497.1 days was fixed quite some time ago.  However the uptime counter
(cat /proc/uptime) is counted in seconds in a 32bit variable.  So it
isn't possible for a Linux box to show more than 497 days of uptime
because the uptime rolls over then.  FWIW.

-steve

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20010420212338.Z41536>