On 25/07/16 08:38, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 07/25/16 22:30, Tim wrote:
Tim:
I'm sceptical, too (about that belief). I'm inclined to believe that
story has been conjured up by someone to explain things, and everyone
else has simply gone along with it.
Joe Zeff:
Be as skeptical as you want, but
On 31/07/16 19:16, Stephen Davies wrote:
Back to square one.
I have checked the battery and it seems fine and the hardware clock is
correct.
More recent reboots suggest that the "extra" log entries are from eight
days before the reboot.
There is nothing in the logs to suggest that the clock is b
Back to square one.
I have checked the battery and it seems fine and the hardware clock is correct.
More recent reboots suggest that the "extra" log entries are from eight days
before the reboot.
There is nothing in the logs to suggest that the clock is being reset by ntp
(though ntp is configu
Allegedly, on or about 26 July 2016, geo.inbox.ignored sent:
> also, unless you are an enviro freak worrying about using electricity
> and feel you must shut down, consider this, component failure is most
> like to happen from a cold start than from full time power up.
>
> in long run, a system wi
Tim:
>> I'm still not convinced a PC clock is deliberately designed to run slow.
>> My experience with flattening BIOS batteries has been peculiar hardware
>> behaviour, can't say that I've noticed the time going skew whiff.
Joe Zeff:
> Don't forget that most PCs are always online, and adjusting t
On 07/26/2016 02:45 PM, Tom Horsley wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:23:25 -0500
> geo wrote:
>
>> you sure about that?
>
> Certainly it is true for every PC I had. The time of day
> clocks on most motherboards are so dreadful they loose
> or gain something like 10 minutes a day. Setting the
> tim
On Tue, 26 Jul 2016 14:23:25 -0500
geo wrote:
> you sure about that?
Certainly it is true for every PC I had. The time of day
clocks on most motherboards are so dreadful they loose
or gain something like 10 minutes a day. Setting the
time at boot from the network and keeping it set was
essential
On 07/26/2016 02:07 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 07/25/2016 11:19 PM, Tim wrote:
>>
>> I'm still not convinced a PC clock is deliberately designed to run slow.
>> My experience with flattening BIOS batteries has been peculiar hardware
>> behaviour, can't say that I've noticed the time going skew whif
On 07/25/2016 11:19 PM, Tim wrote:
I'm still not convinced a PC clock is deliberately designed to run slow.
My experience with flattening BIOS batteries has been peculiar hardware
behaviour, can't say that I've noticed the time going skew whiff.
Don't forget that most PCs are always online, an
Allegedly, on or about 25 July 2016, Ed Greshko sent:
> Actually I would find it very odd that "digital" devices would run
> slower as a battery weakens. I mean even my battery operated clocks
> at home work perfectly fine without losing time. When the battery
> "dies" they just cease to function
On 07/25/2016 09:38 AM, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 07/25/16 22:30, Tim wrote:
>> Tim:
I'm sceptical, too (about that belief). I'm inclined to believe
that story has been conjured up by someone to explain things, and
everyone else has simply gone along with it.
>> Joe Zeff:
>>> Be as s
On 07/25/2016 07:30 AM, Tim wrote:
I'd like to see some proof that it's actually designed to run slow when
the battery goes flat, as opposed that merely being what happens.
All I can tell you (not being a hardware geek) is that I learned about
it from the guy who's done all my hardware work si
Well - i hate to butt in here but i can most definitely say that my wristwatch
for example most definitely indicates a dying battery by only moving the second
hand every 2 seconds instead of 1 second
- BUT it moves 2 increments each 2 seconds - but i have no idea if that has any
relevance!
> On
[snip]
I shall certainly check the battery but I don't see how the battery could
caise so many "bad" log entries spanning several hours in one minute.
Look again at the snippet I included.
Cheers,
Stephen
[snip]
Good, this is just methodology starting with the battery. Possible to
expand your s
On 07/25/16 22:30, Tim wrote:
> Tim:
>>> I'm sceptical, too (about that belief). I'm inclined to believe that
>>> story has been conjured up by someone to explain things, and everyone
>>> else has simply gone along with it.
> Joe Zeff:
>> Be as skeptical as you want, but it's been true ever sinc
Allegedly, on or about 25 July 2016, Stephen Davies sent:
> I shall certainly check the battery but I don't see how the battery
> could caise so many "bad" log entries spanning several hours in one
> minute.
Is the log generated in real time, as it happens?
Or are you getting slew of things dumped
Tim:
>> I'm sceptical, too (about that belief). I'm inclined to believe that
>> story has been conjured up by someone to explain things, and everyone
>> else has simply gone along with it.
Joe Zeff:
> Be as skeptical as you want, but it's been true ever since I got my
> first PC in the late '80s
hello Tim and Joe.
On 07/25/2016 01:03 AM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 07/24/2016 08:40 PM, Tim wrote:
>> I'm sceptical, too (about that belief). I'm inclined to believe that
>> story has been conjured up by someone to explain things, and everyone
>> else has simply gone along with it.
>
> Be as skepti
On 24 July 2016 8:14:07 PM ACST, fred roller wrote:
>First thing I would check is the CMOS battery if you have one or can
>get to
>it. Sounds like system time is not being held. Go through boot log. If
>the
>system corrects shortly after a. Nts comes up and b. Network connection
>is
>established t
On 07/24/2016 08:40 PM, Tim wrote:
I'm sceptical, too (about that belief). I'm inclined to believe that
story has been conjured up by someone to explain things, and everyone
else has simply gone along with it.
Be as skeptical as you want, but it's been true ever since I got my
first PC in the
Joe Zeff:
>> Actually, the CMOS has always been designed to make the clock run
>> slow when the battery's weak to warn the user.
geo.inbox.ignored:
> this is true, to a point.
>
> it is not intended _by_design_, it is due to nature of the clock
> oscillator circuit used.
I'm sceptical, too (abou
hello Joe.
On 07/24/2016 07:27 PM, Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 07/24/2016 02:14 PM, geo.inbox.ignored wrote:
>> imbw, but, if battery is too weak to hold clock settings, reversion would
>> be further than a few days. even if there is a cap holding cmos v.
>
> Actually, the CMOS has always been designed
On 07/24/2016 02:14 PM, geo.inbox.ignored wrote:
imbw, but, if battery is too weak to hold clock settings, reversion would
be further than a few days. even if there is a cap holding cmos v.
Actually, the CMOS has always been designed to make the clock run slow
when the battery's weak to warn t
On 07/24/2016 05:44 AM, fred roller wrote:
> First thing I would check is the CMOS battery if you have one or can get to
> it. Sounds like system time is not being held. Go through boot log. If the
> system corrects shortly after a. Nts comes up and b. Network connection is
> established then thi
First thing I would check is the CMOS battery if you have one or can get to
it. Sounds like system time is not being held. Go through boot log. If the
system corrects shortly after a. Nts comes up and b. Network connection is
established then this may be the case. Couple dollars for a button batter
My F22 randomly crashes to a frozen state that requires a power cycle to
restart.
When this happens, the time stamp on log files such as /var/log/messages
changes for a while before reverting to the correct date and time.
Today,the sequence was:
Jul 24 10:55:55 mustang rsyslogd: [origin softwa
26 matches
Mail list logo
