From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 19 10:10:13 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id KAA24979 for chat-outgoing; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 10:10:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [207.107.138.200]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id KAA24972 for ; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 10:10:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (scrappy@localhost) by hub.org (8.8.5/8.7.5) with SMTP id NAA21122; Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:00:29 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 19 Sep 1997 13:00:29 -0400 (EDT) From: The Hermit Hacker To: mika ruohotie cc: wosch@cs.tu-berlin.de, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: uptime on hub.freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <199709191621.TAA23750@shadows.aeon.net> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk On Fri, 19 Sep 1997, mika ruohotie wrote: > > > 11:42AM up 100 days, 14:29, 10 users, load averages: 0.41, 0.44, 0.47 > > 10:01AM up 279 days, 19:56, 2 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00 > > just think about all those bugs and security holes in both systems... > > starting from procfs thing. > > i prefer my machines up to date, since rebooting new kernel > takes machine off for just a minute or two. That's great for non-production machines that don't need 24/7 uptime, but this server requires that level of uptime. A minute or two can lead to even longer if that new kernel has the slightly bug in it, something I experienced with a 'stable' kernel on a 'not-so-stable' machine awhile back :( Marc G. Fournier scrappy@hub.org Systems Administrator @ hub.org scrappy@freebsd.org