Uwe Dippel wrote:
>
> Theo de Raadt wrote:
>
> > So don't use it.
> >
> > But please, I beg of you, stop your incessant complaining.
> >
> > The more you whine, the less we feel the need to change anything.
>
> Oh, my wrong. I simply thought you were with the intention to improve
> the system
Theo de Raadt wrote:
So don't use it.
But please, I beg of you, stop your incessant complaining.
The more you whine, the less we feel the need to change anything.
Oh, my wrong. I simply thought you were with the intention to improve
the system. And I was more than willing to help out here b
> As much as I welcomed openntpd (the other one is a bore to set up), now I
> feel less happy. I don't need more than 50 msec of precision, but I'd
> sleep better if it noticed 'running away'; and I'd be happy if it noticed
> great deviations and warned me, respectively initiated some rough setting
On Thu, 15 Dec 2005 16:23:20 -0800, Ted Unangst wrote:
> start it with -s.
Ted, thanks, I know.
But this doesn't help my concerns:
1. Since it isn't the default flag; plus I *did* use it on those Proliants
and the drift increasingly moved away from 0.
Or, as we say in Process Control, the Error
On 12/15/05, Uwe Dippel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:32:13 +1100, Darren Tucker wrote:
>
> > By my rough calculations, your system clock is drifting at about 1.6%,
> > which is more than adjtime can correct for (roughly 0.5%).
>
> All fine, and no flame intended:
> There have
On Wed, 14 Dec 2005 15:32:13 +1100, Darren Tucker wrote:
> By my rough calculations, your system clock is drifting at about 1.6%,
> which is more than adjtime can correct for (roughly 0.5%).
All fine, and no flame intended:
There have been people bragging about openntpd to be advantageous compare
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 04:14:06PM +0800, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> Drifting off:
>
> Dec 13 12:49:00 cip ntpd[26647]: ntp engine ready
> Dec 13 12:49:22 cip ntpd[26647]: peer 172.16.0.4 now valid
> Dec 13 12:50:16 cip ntpd[22805]: adjusting local clock by 39.362721s
[...]
> Dec 13 13:02:33 cip ntpd[228
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:50:53 +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
> There is a fix in current concerning adjtime() adjusting in the wrong
> direction, but that only happens with much larger offsets. That fix
> also has nothing to do with UP vs MP. You are looking at a genuine mp
> bug, it seems.
This is w
On Tue, 13 Dec 2005, Uwe Dippel wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:30:07 -0500, Nick Holland wrote:
>
> > 1) set time properly, using rdate or ntpd -s.
>
> Done
>
> > 2) now how does it do?
>
> Drifting off:
>
> Dec 13 12:49:00 cip ntpd[26647]: ntp engine ready
> Dec 13 12:49:22 cip ntpd[26647]:
On Mon, 12 Dec 2005 22:30:07 -0500, Nick Holland wrote:
> 1) set time properly, using rdate or ntpd -s.
Done
> 2) now how does it do?
Drifting off:
Dec 13 12:49:00 cip ntpd[26647]: ntp engine ready
Dec 13 12:49:22 cip ntpd[26647]: peer 172.16.0.4 now valid
Dec 13 12:50:16 cip ntpd[22805]: adju
Uwe Dippel wrote:
> [Background: we now received the second batch of Proliant ML-350G4p with
> dual core Xeon. I had pointed out earlier that bsd.mp performs a
> miscalculation of the time-stamp by 2:1 on ML350G4. This is unresolved
> despite all efforts and input; but goes into another thread.]
>
[Background: we now received the second batch of Proliant ML-350G4p with
dual core Xeon. I had pointed out earlier that bsd.mp performs a
miscalculation of the time-stamp by 2:1 on ML350G4. This is unresolved
despite all efforts and input; but goes into another thread.]
On the ML350G4p the time wit
12 matches
Mail list logo
