On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 16:42 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On Jan 28, 2008 4:38 PM, Krzysztof Halasa <khc@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > "Stephen John Smoogen" <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > theoretically one could update a kernel without technically > > > rebooting... but at what point are you just being silly to just say > > > you have the longest uptime (and is it uptime if you have dropped all > > > your services to do your update?) > > > > Think remote access, reboot is a dangerous operation. Anyway, if a > > reboot buys you nothing you don't reboot, do you? :-) > > > > I reboot religiously. What does 5110 days of uptime buy me anyway? Not > even a cup of coffee. > At my last job we put a policy in place where no system would have a greater than 150 day update, unless it had extenuating circumstances. What I discovered in general was this: - systems that haven't been rebooted in a while sometimes gather cruft that has not been properly laced into the startup. so it doesn't come up on its own. Rebooting frequently ensures that people remember to do that - any system that "MUST BE UP ALL THE TIME" should be redundant. If it is not redundant and it is that important then that service is a pretty precarious position. - reboots ferret out problems in hardware that you don't always see until a powercycle. Like a disk that will just keep on spinning provided it is never stopped. I agree with religiously rebooting boxes. -sv -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
