Re: uptime

[dman <dsh8290@rit.edu>]

On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 03:03:39PM -0700, Karsten M. Self wrote:
| on Sat, Sep 15, 2001 at 11:29:21PM -0400, dman (dsh8290@rit.edu) wrote:
| > On Sun, Sep 16, 2001 at 05:16:37AM +0200, Martin F Krafft wrote:
| > | also sprach Jason Boxman (on Sat, 15 Sep 2001 08:22:26PM -0400):
| > | > Dude, what kernel version is on those?!
| > | 
| > | > > piper:/var/log# uptime
| > | > > 16:58:42 up 854 days, 11:46, 67 users, load average: 0.05, 0.05, 0.01
| > | 
| > | 2.0.22
| > | 
| > | > > titan:~# uptime
| > | > > 11:06am up 1556 day(s), 4:30, 113 users, load average: 0.06, 0.13, 0.11
| > | 
| > | 2.0.38
| > | 
| > | these machines are around: piper as a modem/fax server, and piper as a
| > | print server. work just fine. :)
| > 
| > The next killer-feature would be the ability to upgrade the kernel
| > while it is running without losing the uptime.  :-).
| 
| Two-kernel monty allows you to boot a kernel from within a running
| GNU/Linux session,

Ooh, cool.  I'll have to check it out.  Maybe that way I could switch
framebuffer resolutions without rebooting :-).

| though all session timers restart.
 
| You'd have to somehow feed an uptime value to the new kernel to actually
| carry uptime forward.  Again, it would be something of a fib.

Yeah, it makes sense because the uptime measures how long the kernel
has been running.  Maybe we need to make a new timer that shows how
long the *system* has been running without a reboot (even a soft
reboot).  This would have to be hardware level I think.

-D