> 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 importan
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 p
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 eve
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 vulne
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
> > 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 http://www.scyld.com/produc
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 vulne
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?
>
>
> 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, 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 potenti
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 li
- 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 lik
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 s
> 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 Free
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 Unsubscri
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
-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 <[EMA
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
b
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 o
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
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
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 th
On Tue, 17 Dec 2002 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 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
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: sen
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
>
> 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 wo
t;[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 up...
> > >
> >
> > I have
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,
- 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 day
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
30 matches
Mail list logo
