Re: Linux timekeeping plans
Brandon S. Allbery KF8NH (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Thu, 03 Dec 1998 21:01:41 -0500
In message <email@example.com>, Stefan Monnier writes:
| >>>>> "Colin" == Colin Plumb <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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 ?
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] email@example.com
system administrator [WAY too many hats] firstname.lastname@example.org
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 email@example.com
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/