Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Windows 95 and 98 would crash after 49.7 days of uptime

sites.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–85 of 85 posts

Re: Why Windows 95 and 98 would crash after 49.7 days of uptime

#81

Post by lbruder »

pottertheotter wrote: post #56
rkeene2 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These days it's still possible to patch and have a high kernel uptime due to in-kernel Kernel Live Patching (KLP) support. I've written a few KLP patches to solve kernel bugs without rebooting just because rebooting every system takes a long time to complete.

I'm not a systems person and pretty new using Linux, so have a lot to learn. I have Ubuntu installed on a computer here at home and recently enabled Canonical Livepatch. I also update whatever needs updating when I SSH in based on the "x packages can be updated. x updates are security updates." messages I get. Some of these require a restart. This isn't a problem for me since I'm just messing around. I'm wondering ho…

Go to /etc/apt/apt.conf.d/ and have a look at 50unattended-upgrades and 10periodic. My 10periodic looks like this:

    APT::Periodic::Update-Package-Lists "1";
    APT::Periodic::Download-Upgradeable-Packages "1";
    APT::Periodic::AutocleanInterval "7";
    APT::Periodic::Unattended-Upgrade "1";
And 50unattended-upgrades:

    Unattended-Upgrade::DevRelease "false";
    Unattended-Upgrade::Remove-Unused-Kernel-Packages "true";
    Unattended-Upgrade::Remove-Unused-Dependencies "false";
    Unattended-Upgrade::Automatic-Reboot "true";
    Unattended-Upgrade::Automatic-Reboot-Time "02:00";
No more worrying about updates :)

Re: Why Windows 95 and 98 would crash after 49.7 days of uptime

#82

Post by rcxdude »

derefr wrote: post #72
rcxdude wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still doesn't work for all cases. At my work we had a system running a control loop reboot due to updates, which reset a system which had been stabilising for weeks (we had tried to stop it updating, unsuccessfully as it turned out). Windows is basically rendering itself unsuitable for running such a system because of their update policy (which is a shame when the systems necessary for running the control loop depend…

I mean... shouldn't those systems be running Windows IoT Core ( nee Windows Embedded)? That branch doesn't have auto updates, AFAIK.

These are lab experiments. The people running, configuring, and setting them up neither have the expertise nor the time to set up such a system.

Re: Why Windows 95 and 98 would crash after 49.7 days of uptime

#83

Post by rcxdude »

jimnotgym wrote: post #77
rcxdude wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still doesn't work for all cases. At my work we had a system running a control loop reboot due to updates, which reset a system which had been stabilising for weeks (we had tried to stop it updating, unsuccessfully as it turned out). Windows is basically rendering itself unsuitable for running such a system because of their update policy (which is a shame when the systems necessary for running the control loop depend…

I can't say this chimes with me at all. I have seen plenty of Windows server 2016 (W10 for servers ish) stay up for over a year. On an AD network you control the update policy! I can stop all of my clients updating with a group policy.

This is basically a desktop system running a lab experiment. After the pop saying 'reboot in x hours' we changed the group policy, however this does not stop a pending update.

Re: Why Windows 95 and 98 would crash after 49.7 days of uptime

#84

Post by OliverJones »

OliverJones wrote: post #49

If you think this is cool, wait'll you see what un-upgraded UNIX-derived systems do on Jan 19, 2038 at 03:14:07Z.

Update: new kernel are on top of this problem. https://lkml.org/lkml/2020/1/29/355?anz=web It's the old systems that will suffer. Hopefully only soda machines and not avionics or intravenous infusion pumps.
Post reply on HN