Randall R Schulz wrote:
One my 10.0 system: % while true; do hwclock; sleep 10; done Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:25:14 AM PST -0.877900 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:25:25 AM PST -0.988284 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:25:36 AM PST -0.983046 seconds
On my 10.3 system: % while true; do hwclock; sleep 10; done Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:25:16 AM PST -0.000481 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:25:26 AM PST -0.000754 seconds
They're running on completely different hardware, but both use NTP. Randall Schulz
Interesting -- using same version of "hwclock" & same kernel version, I compared 3 machines: one machine averaged around -0.988xxx, another -0.991xxx and a third at -0.0003xx. (the xxx digits are variable, the listed digits were mostly fixed values after the loop start). Their HW varies considerably, the first two about 5-6 years old, the latter more recent. I wonder why they cluster like they do -- the first two around -1, and the newer one nearer 0. Curious... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org