great uptime on my Slackware server

Barx · 07-22-2019, 06:08 AM

Hi all

I'm proud to share this uptime achieved on the Slackware that I'm using in my office.

I take advantage of this post to thank Patrick and the entire Slackware staff to the great job they are doing, maintaining this ROCK SOLID Linux distro

Anyway, I have to emphasize the fact that the server was absolutely NOT created to reach record uptimes. This is a small server in my (smallest) office, built with desktop hardware; in fact, it's a normal desktop PC used as a server.

The uptime is due first of all to the fact that I never had long blackouts (and that the UPS worked good in the small blackouts I've got), than to the good luck with the hardware chosen, and of course to the great stability of Slackware!

None of my friends and colleagues uses Slackware on their servers, and none of them reaches uptimes greater then some hundreds days :-)

So, I'm happy to thank you all one more time

Kind regards

Alessandro Barisone

dc.901 · 07-22-2019, 06:27 AM

Wow! I think closest I had was about 900 days.
I'm curious, in over 5-years, no updates that required a reboot?

Lysander666 · 07-22-2019, 06:31 AM

Beats my current uptime of 1 and a half days...

But OP, congratulations. That's a seriously impressive uptime. What version of Slackware is that?

[If anyone's interested in the maths, OP's uptime is exactly five and a half years and the server was last turned on/rebooted around 22nd January 2014].

EDIT: version has to be 14.0 looking at the kernel.

montagdude · 07-22-2019, 08:01 AM

Don't you ever upgrade the kernel?

allend · 07-22-2019, 08:54 AM

Methinks you skate on thin ice with ssh enabled for login by root with a password and the 3.2.45 kernel.

ehartman · 07-22-2019, 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lysander666

Beats my current uptime of 1 and a half days...

And mine, of 27 days (we had a power failure about a month ago during which the internet was down for several hours).

hitest · 07-22-2019, 09:21 AM

One day of uptime here. There was a new kernel in -current yesterday.

Code:

bash-5.0$ uname -rpm
4.19.60 x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz

That's impressive uptime! However, I share the concern that others have mentioned. A server should be patched with security updates in my opinion.

Code:

Mon Jul 22 03:05:48 UTC 2019
patches/packages/linux-4.4.182/*:  Upgraded.
  These updates fix various bugs and many minor security issues.
  Be sure to upgrade your initrd after upgrading the kernel packages.
  If you use lilo to boot your machine, be sure lilo.conf points to the correct
  kernel and initrd and run lilo as root to update the bootloader.
  If you use elilo to boot your machine, you should run eliloconfig to copy the
  kernel and initrd to the EFI System Partition.
  For more information, see:
    Fixed in 4.4.183:
    https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2019-11599
    https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2019-3892
    Fixed in 4.4.185:
    https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2019-13272
    https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2018-16597
    Fixed in 4.4.186:
    https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2019-10126
    https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2019-3846
  (* Security fix *)
+--------------------------+

cwizardone · 07-22-2019, 10:16 AM

Barx,
Impressive. Very impressive!

Lysander666 · 07-22-2019, 10:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by allend

Methinks you skate on thin ice with ssh enabled for login by root with a password and the 3.2.45 kernel.

14.0 is not EOL but the 3.2.x kernel is. I don't understand how that works.

hitest · 07-22-2019, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lysander666

14.0 is not EOL but the 3.2.x kernel is. I don't understand how that works.

That means that the 3.2x kernel will not receive patches for known or new security vulnerabilities. Not a good situation for a server.

Lysander666 · 07-22-2019, 10:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by hitest

That means that the 3.2x kernel will not receive patches for known or new security vulnerabilities. Not a good situation for a server.

Indeed, but in that case why would 14.0 continue to receive updates?

montagdude · 07-22-2019, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lysander666

Indeed, but in that case why would 14.0 continue to receive updates?

Other software continues to be patched. The admin is responsible for upgrading the kernel or leaving it insecure.

Lysander666 · 07-22-2019, 10:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by montagdude

Other software continues to be patched. The admin is responsible for upgrading the kernel or leaving it insecure.

Ah I see, thank you.

Barx · 07-22-2019, 11:04 AM

I'm aware of what implies to keep using an old (unpatched) kernel, but after the first year of uptime the willing to beat the record won on the patches, so I moved security on the network perimeter. And I'm aware that this isn't an optimal solution.

The server is used internal on my network only for PHP develop and as file server; the SSH port is mapped on a non standard port, and ports opens on firewall only after a port knock; the server is not faced on the internet without successful knocking

The server runs Slackware 14.0 (the one available in January 2014), and was never rebooted (assembled, installed, booted first time, never rebooted)

dc.901 · 07-22-2019, 11:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Barx

The server runs Slackware 14.0 (the one available in January 2014), and was never rebooted (assembled, installed, booted first time, never rebooted)

Very Impressive!