On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 6:07 AM, William Immendorf wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Mykal Funk wrote:
> > I can say it isn't the hardware. I recompiled the kernel with
> > CONFIG_HZ_100 option set, then rebooted with that kernel. I started the
> > glibc build from 5.7.1 and 12 hours la
William Immendorf wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Mykal Funk wrote:
>
>> I can say it isn't the hardware. I recompiled the kernel with
>> CONFIG_HZ_100 option set, then rebooted with that kernel. I started the
>> glibc build from 5.7.1 and 12 hours later under high load the clock is
Mykal Funk wrote:
> I can say it isn't the hardware. I recompiled the kernel with
> CONFIG_HZ_100 option set, then rebooted with that kernel. I started the
I was convinced that was the problem. Congratulations!
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
Oppose
On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 7:33 AM, Mykal Funk wrote:
> I can say it isn't the hardware. I recompiled the kernel with
> CONFIG_HZ_100 option set, then rebooted with that kernel. I started the
> glibc build from 5.7.1 and 12 hours later under high load the clock is
> still accurate. Problem fixed. Th
Johnneylee Rollins wrote:
>
> I'm curious, what are the other computers that you used?
>
> May I take this moment to refocus this? We're supposed to be helping
> him with an issue with his clock.
> Personally I'd try to recreate the problem and create some sort of
> log. I don't know enough t
>
> I'm curious, what are the other computers that you used?
>
May I take this moment to refocus this? We're supposed to be helping him
with an issue with his clock.
Personally I'd try to recreate the problem and create some sort of log. I
don't know enough to point you in any understandable direct
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 6:17 PM, Mykal Funk wrote:
> I have other computers. The 486 is for play and learning. It's been a
> while since I built a LFS system.
I'm curious, what are the other computers that you used?
--
William Immendorf
The ultimate in free computing.
Messages in plain text, pl
William Immendorf wrote:
> Uh, Mykal, shouldn't you try upgrading your computer? My 2 year old
> Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 has a SBU of around 1 or 2 minutes, and if you
> keep doing this for a living, I think it's time to upgrade your
> computer.
>
I have other computers. The 486 is for play and l
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mykal Funk wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> X is much too heavyweight for that processor.
>
> Mykal Funk
Have you considered XVesa? Puppy has the option to use it as an
alternative to Xorg; it's apparently supposed to be really light and fast.
- --
-
On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Mykal Funk wrote:
>> I wouldn't try putting a gui on it even if you can.
>>
>> -- Bruce
>>
>>
> Didn't plan on it. X is much too heavyweight for that processor.
Uh, Mykal, shouldn't you try upgrading your computer? My 2 year old
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 has a SBU
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Mykal Funk wrote:
>
>
>> I would hate to have to 'nice' the process. An SBU equals about 150
>> minutes.
>>
>
> That is a *really* slow system. My 5 year old P4 has an SBU of 132.5
> *seconds*. I'm not sure why you want to do this except that you might
> just want
Mykal Funk wrote:
> I would hate to have to 'nice' the process. An SBU equals about 150
> minutes.
That is a *really* slow system. My 5 year old P4 has an SBU of 132.5
*seconds*. I'm not sure why you want to do this except that you might
just want to see if you *can* do it.
I wouldn't try
linux fan wrote:
> On 12/14/09, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
>> Try the fix Ken suggested (CONFIG_HZ_100) and make sure you turn off the
>> SMP option. That has a lot of extra code you don't need
I am currently building a new kernel for the host system. It should
finish later today. I'll then test the
linux fan wrote:
> On 12/14/09, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> Try the fix Ken suggested (CONFIG_HZ_100) and make sure you turn off the
>> SMP option. That has a lot of extra code you don't need.
>>
>
> Is there a way to 'nice' the build so that it doesn't use all 100% cpu?
The build isn't the issue. He'
Mykal Fink wrote:-
>
> I replaced the battery and the behavior didn't change.
But at least, for a very small outlay, you can now rule out battery
problems, and you don't have to worry about losing time when the box is
unplugged.
Richard
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-supp
On 12/14/09, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>
> Try the fix Ken suggested (CONFIG_HZ_100) and make sure you turn off the
> SMP option. That has a lot of extra code you don't need.
>
Is there a way to 'nice' the build so that it doesn't use all 100% cpu?
Does the clock moving only a tick or two during the en
Mykal Funk wrote:
> Bruce Dubbs wrote:
>> What kernel are you running and what is the HW again?
>>
> I'm running 2.6.30.9 kernel on an ancient 486DX.
Try the fix Ken suggested (CONFIG_HZ_100) and make sure you turn off the
SMP option. That has a lot of extra code you don't need.
-- Bruce
Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Mykal Funk wrote:
>
>
>> I replaced the battery and the behavior didn't change. The time loss
>> occurs only under high load. When uptime reports a high load average,
>> the system loses time like crazy. When it is just sitting doing nothing
>> it keeps perfect time. I do
2009/12/14 Mike McCarty :
>
> So, figuring out how to make
> your kernel revert back to the pre 2.6 days rate of 100
> interrupts per second may fix your problem. Anyone here who
> knows how to do this is requested to chime in.
>
> Mike
CONFIG_HZ_100 (instead of CONFIG_HZ_1000) - the
250 variant
Mykal Funk wrote:
> Rod Waldren wrote:
>> I've had a bad battery manifest problems in many ways, not just losing
>> time while powered down. Most recently I was having random problems and
>> odd instability with a system. It was rock solid after replacing the
>> battery. It's wasn't as bad as
Mykal Funk wrote:
> I replaced the battery and the behavior didn't change. The time loss
> occurs only under high load. When uptime reports a high load average,
> the system loses time like crazy. When it is just sitting doing nothing
> it keeps perfect time. I don't know what to make of it. Pe
Rod Waldren wrote:
> On 12/12/2009 1:29 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
>> If I understand his first post, his problem is losing system time while
>> it is up, not batteries. Replacing the battery will not make his
>> system keep better time. If he still loses time while the power supply
>> is turned
On 12/12/2009 1:29 PM, Mike McCarty wrote:
>
> If I understand his first post, his problem is losing system time while
> it is up, not batteries. Replacing the battery will not make his
> system keep better time. If he still loses time while the power supply
> is turned on, even when running with t
Richard Melville wrote:
> I agree with everything that's been said, but why not just *buy the
> battery*; then you'll have no time concerns whatsoever. In the UK they cost
> from about £1 upwards, depending on the type. I really can't see what the
> problem is.
If I understand his first post, hi
Sorry, I meant to say "no time problems whatsoever regarding the battery."
Richard
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/lfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
I agree with everything that's been said, but why not just *buy the
battery*; then you'll have no time concerns whatsoever. In the UK they cost
from about £1 upwards, depending on the type. I really can't see what the
problem is.
Richard
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-suppo
On Fri, 2009-12-11 at 14:05 -0600, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Mykal Funk wrote:
>
> > I know the cmos battery is running low on this machine. But will the
> > clock skew affect the build?
>
> Depends if the slew is forward or backward. If it's backward, it could
> cause a problem.
Does that ever a
Mykal Funk wrote:
> I know the cmos battery is running low on this machine. But will the
> clock skew affect the build?
Depends if the slew is forward or backward. If it's backward, it could
cause a problem.
-- Bruce
--
http://linuxfromscratch.org/mailman/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http:/
Johnneylee Rollins wrote:
[...]
> But as long as you get the time from an ntp server and set it as your
> hardware time, you shouldn't have any problem.
Even that isn't necessary. All that's required is that time not
"go backwards". Just booting up and then manually setting the time
will work fi
>
> What I really need to know is if this is clock problem will effect the
> build of a complete LFS system. Will the clock skew subtlety break the
> toolchain?
>
No, it shouldn't as long as you don't leave the computer off long enough for
the computer to lose the time. I usually have about 5-10 s
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Mykal Funk wrote:
>
>> I know the cmos battery is running low on this machine. But will the
>>
>
> The clock does not run on the battery unless the machine is shut down
> and turned off. While the power supply is on, the clock runs off the
> power supply. The crystals
Mykal Funk wrote:
> I know the cmos battery is running low on this machine. But will the
The clock does not run on the battery unless the machine is shut down
and turned off. While the power supply is on, the clock runs off the
power supply. The crystals supplied with the clock chips are more
acc
On Freitag, 11. Dezember 2009, Mykal Funk wrote:
> I am use to old hardware (i486DX) having problems keeping time on the
> hardware clock. But isn't the system clock a separate thing? I am losing
> about 4 min on the system clock for every 10 minutes of real time. I've
> googled around for clock dr
Richard Melville wrote:
>
>
> On Friday 11 December 2009 12:49:52 Johnneylee Rollins wrote:
> > > I am use to old hardware (i486DX) having problems keeping time
> on the
> > > hardware clock. But isn't the system clock a separate thing? I
> am losing
> > > about 4 min on the
>
>
> On Friday 11 December 2009 12:49:52 Johnneylee Rollins wrote:
> > > I am use to old hardware (i486DX) having problems keeping time on the
> > > hardware clock. But isn't the system clock a separate thing? I am
> losing
> > > about 4 min on the system clock for every 10 minutes of real time. I
On Friday 11 December 2009 12:49:52 Johnneylee Rollins wrote:
> > I am use to old hardware (i486DX) having problems keeping time on the
> > hardware clock. But isn't the system clock a separate thing? I am losing
> > about 4 min on the system clock for every 10 minutes of real time. I've
> > google
>
> I am use to old hardware (i486DX) having problems keeping time on the
> hardware clock. But isn't the system clock a separate thing? I am losing
> about 4 min on the system clock for every 10 minutes of real time. I've
> googled around for clock drift information. What I found suggests that
>
I am use to old hardware (i486DX) having problems keeping time on the
hardware clock. But isn't the system clock a separate thing? I am losing
about 4 min on the system clock for every 10 minutes of real time. I've
googled around for clock drift information. What I found suggests that
a system
38 matches
Mail list logo
