Difference between revisions of "Talk:1495: Hard Reboot"

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 7: Line 7:
 
::I agree, and have removed that sentence, because there is no way to be sure that increasing the swap size will help. In fact increasing the swap size is the first step down the '1-10 hours to troubleshoot' path. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 08:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 
::I agree, and have removed that sentence, because there is no way to be sure that increasing the swap size will help. In fact increasing the swap size is the first step down the '1-10 hours to troubleshoot' path. --[[User:Pudder|Pudder]] ([[User talk:Pudder|talk]]) 08:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 
::I think it deserves mention. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 09:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 
::I think it deserves mention. [[User:Mikemk|Mikemk]] ([[User talk:Mikemk|talk]]) 09:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 +
 +
"Also, it can be scheduled during, say, the middle of the night when most users are sleeping to minimize disruption." That would be ''so'' annoying in my case.  I'm glad Randall has a better discipline of schedule than me, with my Windows NT machine which these days definitely needs its manual weekly reboot and ''really'' needs to be functionally replaced except for all the additional fuss it'd require. (Also, I'm not sure about the "first sentence of the title text" bit, as currently stated, but doubtless it'll all be adjusted slightly.) [[Special:Contributions/141.101.98.181|141.101.98.181]] 12:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:02, 6 March 2015

My interpretation is that the 1-10 hours is how long it would take to troubleshoot the problem and the 5 minutes is how long it would take to get kitchen timer and put into socket. So slides are showing the two solutions (one techy and liable to take up to 10 hours vs. the hacky but fast solution). ‎108.162.225.118 (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

At first I thought the ten hours was troubleshooting, but 5 minutes sounds about right for the granularity of the timer. Mikemk (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course, the problem could be solved without a reboot simply by increasing the swap size., my understanding is that the SWAP is overflowing and not just 'too little'. So no, simply increasing the swap size wouldn't solve the problem. 173.245.53.214 07:36, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and have removed that sentence, because there is no way to be sure that increasing the swap size will help. In fact increasing the swap size is the first step down the '1-10 hours to troubleshoot' path. --Pudder (talk) 08:52, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it deserves mention. Mikemk (talk) 09:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

"Also, it can be scheduled during, say, the middle of the night when most users are sleeping to minimize disruption." That would be so annoying in my case. I'm glad Randall has a better discipline of schedule than me, with my Windows NT machine which these days definitely needs its manual weekly reboot and really needs to be functionally replaced except for all the additional fuss it'd require. (Also, I'm not sure about the "first sentence of the title text" bit, as currently stated, but doubtless it'll all be adjusted slightly.) 141.101.98.181 12:02, 6 March 2015 (UTC)