[ciapug] Hmmm...

[Jerry Weida]

You know... it used to be that if you had an uptime of more than 30 days it 
was considered poor administration because kernel patches would come out at 
least that often.

That said, I've seen some posts in newsgroups about servers being up 3 years 
before being rebooted or just crashing. I've only seen about 6 months before 
I rebooted (usually for a kenerl update)

On 6/23/05, Chris Hettinger <cjh at raccoon.com> wrote:
> 
> I win. :)
> 
> (development server)
> [chris at xxx]$ uptime
> 10:01:32 up 369 days, 10:09, 1 user, load average: 0.07, 0.05, 0.00
> 
> (production server)
> [chris at xxx]$ uptime
> 10:01:34 up 369 days, 10:27, 1 user, load average: 0.05, 0.02, 0.00
> 
> 
> 
> Dave J. Hala Jr. wrote:
> > Time for some fun...
> >
> > Here's one of my Linux database servers. Looks like things have been
> > kinda slow lately. Uptime was double that before I had to replace a dvd
> > rw that died from sucking up a bunch of dust...
> >
> > [root at xxx]# uptime
> > 08:25:25 up 256 days, 23:06, 2 users, load average: 0.12, 0.20, 0.09
> >
> >
> > :) Dave
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ciapug mailing list
> ciapug at cialug.org
> http://cialug.org/mailman/listinfo/ciapug
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://cialug.org/pipermail/ciapug/attachments/20050623/19532616/attachment.htm