[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Uptimes - any guidance?



In <[🔎] 4A4521B9.60804@gmail.com>, AG wrote:
>I'm running Squeeze on a desktop and so far have an uptime of some 11d.
>I am just curious whether or not there is any guidance/ advice on how
>long uptimes should be allowed to be run, or whether it is wise to shut
>down and reboot?

Reboots are only needed for a couple of things:
1. Hardware replacement.
2. Kernel replacement.

As for 1, the PC architecture isn't quite up to the standards of "Big Iron" 
so if you are adding/removing/replacing RAM/CPU/boards you'll need to shut 
the system down for that.

As for 2, any time a new security update of your kernel is released you 
should stop using your existing kernel and start using the new kernel.  This 
can be done with the kexec() syscall, which will preserve your uptime, but 
not all kernels have the kexec() syscall.

Now, there are some fairly fundamental services that are difficult to 
cleanly restart.  If there's a security update to one of those, it may be 
easier for you to reboot depending on your skill and time.  Take the easy 
way out, even if the reboot isn't strictly needed.

Finally, it is not a bad idea to reboot your systems to make *sure* they 
will reboot cleanly in the case of (e.g.) power failure.  Doing this on some 
arbitrary schedule doesn't seem incredibly useful, but your administrators 
should have some sense of "I've changed something about the boot process 
that can only be tested by actually booting the system".  They should 
schedule a reboot for the next opportunity.

Using some sort of H-A clustering can prevent these reboots from affecting 
your service uptime, even if the kernels uptimes never grow much beyond 90 
days.
-- 
Boyd Stephen Smith Jr.           	 ,= ,-_-. =.
bss@iguanasuicide.net            	((_/)o o(\_))
ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy 	 `-'(. .)`-'
http://iguanasuicide.net/        	     \_/

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply to: