On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 20:08:44 -0400
Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the building I'm in the heat was over 100 degrees on this past
Monday morning.
The company I work for is in a fairly large office complex (Riverside
Center in Newton) where they turn the A/C off on weekends and
Warren Luebkeman writes:
I am curious how common it is for peoples servers to go extremely
long periods of time without crashing/reboot. Our server, running
Debian Sarge, which serves our email/web/backups/dns/etc has been
running 733 days (two years) without a reboot. Its in an 4U IBM
I guess a better question at this point is then, how much uptime does it take
before a server begins to ask, What am I?, and wishes to meet its creator
Thanks for all the discussion about server uptime. The novelty of having a
server with 2 years of uptime is much less significant now
On Thu, 20 Mar 2008 17:42:57 -0400
Mark E. Mallett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But all of that is completely different from what I said. I agree that
software can keep running without a reboot. But as I mentioned,
sometimes a reboot will find something that you can't possibly find by
keeping a
Warren Luebkeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I am curious how common it is for peoples servers to go extremely long
periods of time without crashing/reboot. Our server, running Debian
Sarge, which serves our email/web/backups/dns/etc has been running 733
days (two years) without a reboot. Its
Tom Buskey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
/me is thankful he doesn't have to reboot his laser printer yet.
We do :(
--
Seeya,
Paul
___
gnhlug-discuss mailing list
gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss/
Bill McGonigle [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mar 19, 2008, at 15:36, Ben Scott wrote:
You're obviously not installing all your security updates, then.
Both the 2.4 and 2.6 Debian kernels have had security advisories
posted within the past two years.
Hey, it's possible that Warren's kernel
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 9:16 AM, Paul Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our Windows server from what I'm told get rebooted once week whether
they need it or not, in the name of 'Preventative Maintenance :)
Sadly, that's an attitude that's quite prevalent in the Windows
world, even though the
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 5:42 PM, Mark E. Mallett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 09:46:04AM -0400, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:38:52 -0400
Mark E. Mallett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sometimes it's good to reboot a system just to make sure you can.
On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 09:46:03 -0400
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From the If Microsoft Made Cars list: Occasionally your car's
engine would just stop for no reason, and you'd have to restart it.
For some strange reason, you'd just accept this.
I'm a pilot, and fortunately Microsoft did
On Mar 21, 2008, at 09:46, Ben Scott wrote:
From the If Microsoft Made Cars list: Occasionally your car's
engine would just stop for no reason, and you'd have to restart it.
For some strange reason, you'd just accept this.
In the building I'm in the heat was over 100 degrees on this past
Bill McGonigle wrote:
It's also connected naked to the Internet for remote monitoring.
For some strange reason, you'd just accept this.
Venturing even further off-topic, I have two different labs that wrote
code without really consulting anyone else. One thought it would save a
lot of
Ben Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2008 at 9:20 AM, Paul Lussier [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey, it's possible that Warren's kernel is so old that he doesn't
suffer from the vmslice() exploit. :)
Sure it's possible. We're not vulnerable to it anywhere, we're still
running
On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 20:26 -0400, Mark Komarinski wrote:
Bill McGonigle wrote:
It's also connected naked to the Internet for remote monitoring.
For some strange reason, you'd just accept this.
Venturing even further off-topic, I have two different labs that wrote
code without
On Mar 21, 2008, at 21:33, Paul Lussier wrote:
Nope, and I didn't say the 2.4 kernel wasn't vulnerable, just that
it's possible to have a stable-running kernel old enough to not have
the vmslice problem... :)
Hey, if you read the _rest_ of the message you quoted originally you
can even find
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 9:38 PM, Mark E. Mallett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 08:23:14PM -0400, Ben Scott wrote:
And let's not forget that Linux isn't immune to restart-the-world
issues, either. For example, on a Linux server, if you update glibc
to patch a
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:38:52 -0400
Mark E. Mallett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sometimes it's good to reboot a system just to make sure you can.
That's very old school :-)
Back in the days where mainframes had the power of my PDA, operating
systems were somewhat unsophisticated. I ran a data
On Mar 19, 2008, at 15:36, Ben Scott wrote:
You're obviously not installing all your security updates, then.
Both the 2.4 and 2.6 Debian kernels have had security advisories
posted within the past two years.
Hey, it's possible that Warren's kernel is so old that he doesn't
suffer from the
On Thu, 2008-03-20 at 13:41 -0400, Bill McGonigle wrote:
On Mar 19, 2008, at 15:36, Ben Scott wrote:
You're obviously not installing all your security updates, then.
Both the 2.4 and 2.6 Debian kernels have had security advisories
posted within the past two years.
Hey, it's possible
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Warren Luebkeman [EMAIL PROTECTED], Benjamin Scott [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: Greater NH Linux User Group gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:41:25 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: server uptime
On Mar 19, 2008, at 15:36, Ben Scott wrote
Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2008 1:41:25 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: server uptime
On Mar 19, 2008, at 15:36, Ben Scott wrote:
You're obviously not installing all your security updates, then.
Both the 2.4 and 2.6 Debian kernels have had security advisories
posted within
On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 09:46:04AM -0400, Jerry Feldman wrote:
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 21:38:52 -0400
Mark E. Mallett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
sometimes it's good to reboot a system just to make sure you can.
That's very old school :-)
thank you :)
Back in the days where mainframes had
Mark E. Mallett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Relatedly, a group of systems can get into a state where it's hard to
reboot the whole group back into that state. This can happen when you
build up a collection of services and servers over time, but never from
scratch. e.g. you might have a
I am curious how common it is for peoples servers to go extremely long periods
of time without crashing/reboot. Our server, running Debian Sarge, which
serves our email/web/backups/dns/etc has been running 733 days (two years)
without a reboot. Its in an 4U IBM chassis with dual power
On Wed, 2008-03-19 at 13:50 -0400, Warren Luebkeman wrote:
I am curious how common it is for peoples servers to go extremely long
periods of time without crashing/reboot. Our server, running Debian Sarge,
which serves our email/web/backups/dns/etc has been running 733 days (two
years)
On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 14:32:54 -0400
Alex Hewitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In my experience the stability of any system has to do with it's usage.
With servers running programs that are reasonably stable up time will
certainly be many months and can stretch into years. Any system that for
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Warren Luebkeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our server, running Debian Sarge, which serves our email/web/backups/dns/etc
has been running 733 days (two years) without a reboot.
You're obviously not installing all your security updates, then.
Both the 2.4 and 2.6
On Mar 19, 2008, at 3:36 PM, Ben Scott wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Warren Luebkeman
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our server, running Debian Sarge, which serves our email/web/
backups/dns/etc
has been running 733 days (two years) without a reboot.
You're obviously not installing
Subject: Re: server uptime
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 1:50 PM, Warren Luebkeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Our server, running Debian Sarge, which serves our email/web/backups/dns/etc
has been running 733 days (two years) without a reboot.
You're obviously not installing all your security updates
Yes, Ben is trying to say that it's not the length of your uptime, but how you
use it.
No one is buying it though.
Warren Luebkeman wrote:
Sounds like someone is insecure about their uptime... ;-)
I do understand your point thought.
___
Got to agree with Ben here. While it's bad if a server can't go 24 hours
due to an OS-level problem, it's also inaccurate to say that a long
uptime implies high service availability. This is doubly so if you are
hosting software: not only does your service need to be available, but
it needs to
point is, I just think its cool...
- Original Message -
From: David J Berube [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: GNHLUG mailing list gnhlug-discuss@mail.gnhlug.org
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 4:46:24 PM (GMT-0500) America/New_York
Subject: Re: server uptime
Got to agree with Ben here. While it's
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 5:01 PM, Warren Luebkeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm impressed that a system could run for two years straight without failing
...
Ah. Well... that gets old after awhile. :)
At the extreme end of the scale, old school IBM mainframe systems
can measure service
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 08:23:14PM -0400, Ben Scott wrote:
And let's not forget that Linux isn't immune to restart-the-world
issues, either. For example, on a Linux server, if you update glibc
to patch a security bug, you pretty much need to restart *everything*.
sometimes it's good to
Mark E. Mallett wrote:
On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 08:23:14PM -0400, Ben Scott wrote:
And let's not forget that Linux isn't immune to restart-the-world
issues, either. For example, on a Linux server, if you update glibc
to patch a security bug, you pretty much need to restart *everything*.
35 matches
Mail list logo
