From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Wed Apr 23 16:43:07 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96B8537B401
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ns3.safety.net (ns3.safety.net [216.40.201.32])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC09D43F3F
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:43:06 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from cbiffle@safety.net)
Received: from localhost (rs.rackshack.net.safety.net [216.40.201.32])
	by ns3.safety.net (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id h3NNh3A07070;
	Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:43:03 -0700
From: "Cliff L. Biffle" <cbiffle@safety.net>
To: "Adrian" <adrian@nu-earth.net>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 16:44:50 -0700
User-Agent: KMail/1.5
References: <DCECJGCCEMJIDCEAHBEEIEOHCBAA.adrian@nu-earth.net>
In-Reply-To: <DCECJGCCEMJIDCEAHBEEIEOHCBAA.adrian@nu-earth.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200304231644.50685.cbiffle@safety.net>
cc: current@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: 1Jan 70   -- FreeBSD 5.0-RELEASE + Current
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2003 23:43:07 -0000

On Wednesday 23 April 2003 03:54 pm, Adrian wrote:
> EEK, Hi All
> i'm not quite sure what to make of this but has anyone seen anything
> similar, as its a bit of a worry. I have enclosed the following from
> 5.0-Release after having the same prob with 5.0-CURRENT-20030418 prior to
> this the server was running 4.5-Release-p2 and it was ok.

I get the 1Jan70 process ages as well.  While a bit unusual, I don't believe 
it's problematic; all the processes with that date are kernel-related or 
low-level system processes.  1Jan70 just means their start dates are zero.

This strikes me as a bug, yes, but probably not fatal. :-)

-Cliff L. Biffle