Re: yay!

[Jacob S <stormspotter@6Texans.net>]

On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 05:10:36 -0500
"Roberto C. Sanchez" <roberto@familiasanchez.net> wrote:

> Jon Dowland wrote:
> > Matthew Joyce wrote:
> >
> >> mat@mail:~$ uptime
> >> 16:21:41 up 397 days,  9:03,  1 user,  load average: 0.11, 0.04,
> >0.01>
> >>
> > Patching a system should take priority over vanity (assuming that's
> > what this is)
> >
> > I note win2k is beating linux on
> > http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/today/top.avg.html
> 
> There are lots of Linux systems out there with crazy uptimes.  The
> problem is that up until about 8-12 months ago, the kernel would
> roll over at ~497 days.  It has to do with the representation of
> time within the kernel.  Thus, it will not even be possible for a
> Linux system to make onto that list (assuing the lowest machine
> is still ~650) for probably about another year.

Or worse, we won't get uptime reports at all. See
http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/accuracy.html#linux26

Jacob