Don't think (pretty darn sure actually) that FreeBSD can do
this ... howver
- there is a project for Linux that has this capability. Check
out the Two
Kernel Monte at
http://www.scyld.com/products/beowulf/software/monte.html
quoeted from
Dave Uhring [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You do realize, I hope, that Linux and Solaris roll over their uptimes
at something like 492 days.
There was a thread on comp.unix.solaris with people reporting uptimes
greater than 492 days. Some with three years uptime (1000
days). There was a bug in
Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is it that makes people rave about the longest uptime? To me, this is
just a list of sites whose admins have neglected to perform the necessary
upgrade-maintenances, seemingly for almost three years even. To me, this is
just a list of potentially vulnerable
At 11:16 AM 1.4.2003 -0500, David Magda wrote:
Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is it that makes people rave about the longest uptime? To me, this is
just a list of sites whose admins have neglected to perform the necessary
upgrade-maintenances, seemingly for almost three years even. To me,
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 11:20:23AM -0600, Jack L. Stone wrote:
Seems like a lot of trouble just to maintain bragging rights about
uptime, only to have a hobbled system that is not really up to date.
That's not quite up IMHO.
[...]
For some people these things are important. I have no problem
On Sat, Jan 04, 2003 at 11:20:23AM -0600, Jack L. Stone wrote:
Seems like a lot of trouble just to maintain bragging rights about
uptime, only to have a hobbled system that is not really up to date.
That's not quite up IMHO.
[...]
For some people these things are important. I have no
On 2003-01-02 17:41, J. Scott Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is impressive. I'm curious if they stayed at a particular version or
if they update as new versions are available? I thought I read somewhere
that FreeBSD could load a new kernel without rebooting?
Nope.
To Unsubscribe:
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 06:09:11PM -0600, Dave Uhring said:
You do realize, I hope, that Linux and Solaris roll over their uptimes
at something like 492 days.
from http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#whichos
--
Additionally HP-UX, Linux, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003 10:05:05 -0800 (PST) Philip Hallstrom [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
26 www.cravath.com 102 ok892 939 940 Solaris 8
Apache/1.3.27 (Unix) PHP/4.2.3
That's certainly more than 492 days... so even if they do reboot,
netcraft is ignoring it or accomodating it seems
On Thursday, Jan 2, 2003, at 17:17 US/Pacific, Mark wrote:
What is it that makes people rave about the longest uptime? To me,
this is
just a list of sites whose admins have neglected to perform the
necessary
upgrade-maintenances, seemingly for almost three years even. To me,
this is
just a
- Original Message -
From: Marcus Reid [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Mike Hogsett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 1:02 AM
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Stability
I like to point people in the direction of:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today
On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 02:17, Mark wrote:
What is it that makes people rave about the longest uptime? To me, this is
just a list of sites whose admins have neglected to perform the necessary
upgrade-maintenances, seemingly for almost three years even. To me, this is
just a list of potentially
I haven't seen FBSD 4.7 system with uptime 1000 days, for quite
obvious reasons.. Should I recommend everyone to install FBSD 2.2.8
since it has good uptime records? :)
Sorry to step into the middle of a thread here, but to me it says that
FreeBSD has had, and likely continues to have, a
On Fri, 3 Jan 2003, Dimitry Andric wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2003-01-03 at 02:29:49 Chris Doherty wrote:
Additionally HP-UX, Linux, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle
back to zero after 497 days
wacky. how/why is this the case?
Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What is it that makes people rave about the longest uptime? To me, this is
just a list of sites whose admins have neglected to perform the necessary
upgrade-maintenances, seemingly for almost three years even. To me, this is
just a list of potentially vulnerable
Dimitry Andric wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2003-01-03 at 02:29:49 Chris Doherty wrote:
Additionally HP-UX, Linux, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle
back to zero after 497 days
wacky. how/why is this the case?
2^32/100/24/60/60 ~= 497.1
I like to point people in the direction of:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
The list is dominated by FreeBSD machines with
uptimes of longer than 1000 days.
Go FreeBSD.
Marcus
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the
On Thursday 02 January 2003 06:02 pm, Marcus Reid wrote:
I like to point people in the direction of:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
The list is dominated by FreeBSD machines with
uptimes of longer than 1000 days.
Go FreeBSD.
You do realize, I hope, that Linux and Solaris
On Thursday 02 January 2003 04:02 pm, Marcus Reid wrote:
I like to point people in the direction of:
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
The list is dominated by FreeBSD machines with
uptimes of longer than 1000 days.
Better news is that it can tell my system is running
That is impressive. I'm curious if they stayed at a particular version or
if they update as new versions are available? I thought I read somewhere
that FreeBSD could load a new kernel without rebooting?
-Scott
On Thu, 2 Jan 2003, Marcus Reid wrote:
I like to point people in the direction
On Thu, Jan 02, 2003 at 06:09:11PM -0600, Dave Uhring said:
You do realize, I hope, that Linux and Solaris roll over their uptimes
at something like 492 days.
from http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#whichos
--
Additionally HP-UX, Linux, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2003-01-03 at 02:29:49 Chris Doherty wrote:
Additionally HP-UX, Linux, Solaris and recent releases of FreeBSD cycle
back to zero after 497 days
wacky. how/why is this the case?
2^32/100/24/60/60 ~= 497.1
Cheers,
- --
Dimitry Andric [EMAIL
Only one Url
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
Bye
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED] you
wrote:
Hey, one of my acquaintences is running a 2.2.8-STABLE box
which had 1048 days of uptime as of 32 days ago. I bet it's
still up...
:)
Is it ok to still run this security hole called 2.2.* ?
:)
--
AY7-UANIC || AY15-RIPE
To Unsubscribe: send
Hey, one of my acquaintences is running a 2.2.8-STABLE box
which had 1048 days of uptime as of 32 days ago. I bet it's
still up...
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with unsubscribe freebsd-questions in the body of the message
- Original Message -
From: Romain Kang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 18:22:22 -0800
To: Mike Hogsett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Stability
Hey, one of my acquaintences is running a 2.2.8-STABLE box
which had 1048 days of uptime as of 32 days ago. I bet it's
still
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 12:18:45AM -0600, Franklin Pierce wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Romain Kang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 18:22:22 -0800
To: Mike Hogsett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Stability
Hey, one of my acquaintences is running a 2.2.8-STABLE
On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 16:31, Cliff Sarginson wrote:
On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 12:18:45AM -0600, Franklin Pierce wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Romain Kang [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 18:22:22 -0800
To: Mike Hogsett [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FreeBSD Stability
I have a used Turing machine, if anyone is interested.
Anyway, this thread is getting a bit away from the nature of this list,
so could it be dropped or moved somewhere else? Thanks
Probably :)
Shame I had a nice story about a mechanical calculating machine.
But, to be pointed, it would
29 matches
Mail list logo
