On Thu, Sep 21, 2006 at 06:36:12PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> someone should verify that this is true. "probably" means this is
> inconclusive, and we won't know for sure until a year and a half from
> now.
Probably means it depends on how long you have had the device running.
On most 64 bit
Craig Small wrote:
... on a 64-bit device you will probably see longer times.
someone should verify that this is true. "probably" means this is
inconclusive, and we won't know for sure until a year and a half from
now.
Conny Brunnkvist wrote:
Michael - your bug report tells us you're running
Am 2006-09-17 13:23:04, schrieb Michael Gilbert:
> the fact that uptime rolls over to 0 days of uptime at 497 days leads to
I have not a singel System, with an Uptime of more then
60 days, since I regulary update my Kernels. Machines
with 497 days uptime will have over 100 Security holes.
> upti
On Sun, Sep 17, 2006 at 01:23:04PM -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
> the fact that uptime rolls over to 0 days of uptime at 497 days leads to
> distorted conclusions in Linux stability analysis. here is one article
> that actually considers this limitation properly, but there are many
> others that
Package: procps
Version: 1:3.2.7-2
Severity: normal
the fact that uptime rolls over to 0 days of uptime at 497 days leads to
distorted conclusions in Linux stability analysis. here is one article
that actually considers this limitation properly, but there are many
others that do not.
http://www.
5 matches
Mail list logo
