Re: Linux timekeeping plans
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH (allbery@kf8nh.apk.net)
Thu, 03 Dec 1998 21:01:41 -0500
In message <5lyaopxcpv.fsf@tequila.cs.yale.edu>, Stefan Monnier writes:
+-----
| >>>>> "Colin" == Colin Plumb <colin@nyx.net> writes:
| > Slaving the clock does require some care, but because the interrupt
| > latency situation inside a single box is not nearly as messy as
| > internet delays that NTP deals with, the algorithms aren't as
|
| I must say (as an NTP user) that I don't understand: why don't you just
| allow xntpd to use the RTC as a local clock and let xntpd slave ths system
| clock with it ?
+--->8
PC RTCs are horrible. For all that it lost up to 15 seconds a day, my
486DX2/66 kept better time in Linux (or OS/2, etc.) than its RTC did. My
P200 dosesn't appear to be much better.
--
brandon s. allbery [os/2][linux][solaris][japh] allbery@kf8nh.apk.net
system administrator [WAY too many hats] allbery@ece.cmu.edu
carnegie mellon / electrical and computer engineering KF8NH
Kiss my bits, Billy-boy.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/