7 ms·

We had a Netware 3 server back in the early 90s that at one point had about 18 months of uptime between reboots. I probably still have a picture of the server

We had a Netware 3 server back in the early 90s that at one point had about 18 months of uptime between reboots. I probably still have a picture of the server screen after it passed the 1 year mark. I haven’t had anything since that could go so long between bounces. It only ran file and print services on 10-base-2 co-ax tho.

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
> I haven’t had anything since that could go so long between bounces. Er. I've seen servers accidentally get into years of uptime from neglect; modern OSs are pretty stable.
theamk 4y ago
that's a joke, right? I recently rebooted my Linux desktop after 2+ years of uptime because a random opengl app finally crashed kernel display driver. And servers which do just one thing can keep going for years, until power fails or its time to decommission them.
seized 4y ago
> I haven’t had anything since that could go so long between bounces. .... Really? Ignoring the "nothing should have that uptime due to security patches" best practice, almost everything should be able to do that barring power or hardware failure. My OpenIndiana NAS has done >1 year uptime two or three times now. My OpnSense firewall did once (too much road warrioring for a period) but could do it easily again. Linux VMs have done that many times for me when I've been lazy on patching or too busy My ESXi hosts do that too. Thats just my basement homelab, nothing special. I installed a cluster of Windows 2003 servers in a customer site a looong time ago that did over 1000 days uptime (no internet access/customer didn't patch/etc). I even had a Windows XP laptop in my garage 10+ years ago that did nothing but Chrome and RDP client go over 400 days before I tripped on the power cord. Yes, systems should be patched and all that. But really, anything not forcing updates should be able to do a year.
- bruce511 4y ago
  I agree that current systems should have no problem running for years between reboots, but which for verious reasons would not be a good idea now. (conversely my current desktop boots so fast that I now shut it down every day. Saves a bit of power, and a clean start to each day feels good.) But it's important to understand that back in the 90s running a machine for long periods was unusual. 18 months is certainly notable. Of course there were no security patches back then (and largely no need for them because the always-on Internet wouldn't happen for another few years.) It's hard to understate just how unreliable tech was in the 20th century. Cars broke down a lot. Computers needed rebooting all the time. The risks taken during Mercury, Gemini and Apollo would be considered completely reckless now. It has ever been thus. In the first world war more pilots died from mechanical failure than from enemy fire. First we make it. Then we make it fast. Then we make it reliable.
- hulitu 4y ago
  > Yes, systems should be patched and all that. But really, anything not forcing updates should be able to do a year. You should try Windows. After some days it becomes confused, some things (especially USB stuff) will not be recognized, programs will not load correctly etc. It is an old bug ( i've seen it also in Win 7) and nobody at Microsoft seems to care about it. Of course, a reboot fixes everything.
  - krylon 4y ago
    At work, I only rebooted my laptop for updates, otherwise I just let it sleep. On the server, especially when running in a VM, Windows can achieve impressive uptime, I've seen one NT 4.0 server with over 5 years without a reboot. These days, the question is if you want to keep a server up for that long just because you can. When I worked as a Windows admin, I usually rebooted the servers after installing updates.
  - nucleardog 4y ago
    I reboot my Win10 machine when there's a power outage long enough to run the UPS down. So probably about once a year. I haven't had the experience you're describing since everything moved over to NT. I.e., Win95/98 did that for me, NT4, Win2000, XP, etc have never exhibited that behaviour for me. I think this take, as a generalization, is a couple decades out of date.
BuildTheRobots 4y ago
05:01:37 up 1442 days, 9:43, 1 user, load average: 4.17, 3.60, 3.38 I really should retire this box, if only because I'm not sure it'd actually reboot.
krylon 4y ago
To be fair, I've seen both a Windows NT 4.0 server, and a Debian server (not sure about the exact version) with several years of uptime. But these days, with everything connected to the Internet, one usually wants to install updates regularly, which often requires a reboot. Also, once the OS goes out of support, it's prudent to upgrade or get a new server altogether.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
kcplate 4y ago
I was a CNE in the ‘90s and remember fellow CNEs with their uptime screen pictures at the conferences. I was an outlier and usually would do a weekly bounce on my servers. I didn’t necessarily have a good reason to do the bounces, but did not tend to have some of the occasional stray issues others would report. Probably was more superstition than anything.

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago

> I haven’t had anything since that could go so long between bounces. Er. I've seen servers accidentally get into years of uptime from neglect; modern OSs are pretty stable.

theamk 4y ago

that's a joke, right? I recently rebooted my Linux desktop after 2+ years of uptime because a random opengl app finally crashed kernel display driver. And servers which do just one thing can keep going for years, until power fails or its time to decommission them.

seized 4y ago

> I haven’t had anything since that could go so long between bounces. .... Really? Ignoring the "nothing should have that uptime due to security patches" best practice, almost everything should be able to do that barring power or hardware failure. My OpenIndiana NAS has done >1 year uptime two or three times now. My OpnSense firewall did once (too much road warrioring for a period) but could do it easily again. Linux VMs have done that many times for me when I've been lazy on patching or too busy My ESXi hosts do that too. Thats just my basement homelab, nothing special. I installed a cluster of Windows 2003 servers in a customer site a looong time ago that did over 1000 days uptime (no internet access/customer didn't patch/etc). I even had a Windows XP laptop in my garage 10+ years ago that did nothing but Chrome and RDP client go over 400 days before I tripped on the power cord. Yes, systems should be patched and all that. But really, anything not forcing updates should be able to do a year.

bruce511 4y ago
I agree that current systems should have no problem running for years between reboots, but which for verious reasons would not be a good idea now. (conversely my current desktop boots so fast that I now shut it down every day. Saves a bit of power, and a clean start to each day feels good.) But it's important to understand that back in the 90s running a machine for long periods was unusual. 18 months is certainly notable. Of course there were no security patches back then (and largely no need for them because the always-on Internet wouldn't happen for another few years.) It's hard to understate just how unreliable tech was in the 20th century. Cars broke down a lot. Computers needed rebooting all the time. The risks taken during Mercury, Gemini and Apollo would be considered completely reckless now. It has ever been thus. In the first world war more pilots died from mechanical failure than from enemy fire. First we make it. Then we make it fast. Then we make it reliable.
hulitu 4y ago
> Yes, systems should be patched and all that. But really, anything not forcing updates should be able to do a year. You should try Windows. After some days it becomes confused, some things (especially USB stuff) will not be recognized, programs will not load correctly etc. It is an old bug ( i've seen it also in Win 7) and nobody at Microsoft seems to care about it. Of course, a reboot fixes everything.
- krylon 4y ago
  At work, I only rebooted my laptop for updates, otherwise I just let it sleep. On the server, especially when running in a VM, Windows can achieve impressive uptime, I've seen one NT 4.0 server with over 5 years without a reboot. These days, the question is if you want to keep a server up for that long just because you can. When I worked as a Windows admin, I usually rebooted the servers after installing updates.
- nucleardog 4y ago
  I reboot my Win10 machine when there's a power outage long enough to run the UPS down. So probably about once a year. I haven't had the experience you're describing since everything moved over to NT. I.e., Win95/98 did that for me, NT4, Win2000, XP, etc have never exhibited that behaviour for me. I think this take, as a generalization, is a couple decades out of date.

BuildTheRobots 4y ago

05:01:37 up 1442 days, 9:43, 1 user, load average: 4.17, 3.60, 3.38 I really should retire this box, if only because I'm not sure it'd actually reboot.

krylon 4y ago

To be fair, I've seen both a Windows NT 4.0 server, and a Debian server (not sure about the exact version) with several years of uptime. But these days, with everything connected to the Internet, one usually wants to install updates regularly, which often requires a reboot. Also, once the OS goes out of support, it's prudent to upgrade or get a new server altogether.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

kcplate 4y ago

I was a CNE in the ‘90s and remember fellow CNEs with their uptime screen pictures at the conferences. I was an outlier and usually would do a weekly bounce on my servers. I didn’t necessarily have a good reason to do the bounces, but did not tend to have some of the occasional stray issues others would report. Probably was more superstition than anything.