-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The Tuesday 2007-12-11 at 10:28 -0800, Randall R Schulz wrote:
set `/sbin/hwclock --show` HWC=$4
Two things:
1) Field four of the output from hwclock is the year.
In mine, it is 'HH:MM:SS'. See: /sbin/hwclock --show set `/sbin/hwclock --show` echo -0 $0 -1 $1 -2 $2 -3 $3 -4 $4 HWC=$4 echo $4 nimrodel:~ # testtime Tue Dec 11 20:17:31 2007 -0.536433 seconds - -0 /root/bin/testtime -1 Tue -2 Dec -3 11 -4 20:17:32 20:17:32 Tue Dec 11 20:17:31 2007 -0.536433 seconds 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 I did my tests to check that days ago :-)
2) The last field of the output is the current discrepancy between the hardware clock and the system clock. Isn't that what you're trying to learn?
Yes and no... you can see if you execute this: hwclock --show ; date several times. I get: nimrodel:~ # hwclock --show ; date Tue Dec 11 20:26:27 2007 -0.598335 seconds Tue Dec 11 20:26:27 CET 2007 nimrodel:~ # hwclock --show ; date Tue Dec 11 20:26:30 2007 -0.502001 seconds Tue Dec 11 20:26:30 CET 2007 nimrodel:~ # hwclock --show ; date Tue Dec 11 20:26:32 2007 -0.274757 seconds Tue Dec 11 20:26:32 CET 2007 and you see the command waits some time before exiting; that wait time I think is that number. It probably waits till the next second boundary, then prints and exit. If it were the time difference beetween both clocks, it would be a constant.
...
Or maybe there is something to get the absolute value.
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 Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:25:47 AM PST -0.989136 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:25:58 AM PST -0.988547 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:26:09 AM PST -0.987777 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:26:20 AM PST -0.989716 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:26:31 AM PST -0.980444 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:26:42 AM PST -0.933735 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:26:53 AM PST -0.982149 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:27:04 AM PST -0.994643 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:27:15 AM PST -0.978735 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:27:26 AM PST -0.940854 seconds ^C
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 Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:25:36 AM PST -0.000752 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:25:46 AM PST -0.000759 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:25:56 AM PST -0.000756 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:26:06 AM PST -0.000758 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:26:16 AM PST -0.000755 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:26:26 AM PST -0.000761 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:26:36 AM PST -0.000766 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:26:46 AM PST -0.000758 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:26:56 AM PST -0.000758 seconds Tue 11 Dec 2007 10:27:06 AM PST -0.000760 seconds ^C
They're running on completely different hardware, but both use NTP.
The "number" is almost the same because the sample is taken with a period multiple of 1 second. If you do it manually, you will see greater differences - like my run: nimrodel:~ # hwclock --show ; date Tue Dec 11 20:28:06 2007 -0.136918 seconds Tue Dec 11 20:28:06 CET 2007 nimrodel:~ # hwclock --show ; date Tue Dec 11 20:28:08 2007 -0.152102 seconds Tue Dec 11 20:28:08 CET 2007 nimrodel:~ # hwclock --show ; date Tue Dec 11 20:28:11 2007 -0.350430 seconds Tue Dec 11 20:28:11 CET 2007 nimrodel:~ # hwclock --show ; date Tue Dec 11 20:28:14 2007 -0.001126 seconds Tue Dec 11 20:28:14 CET 2007 nimrodel:~ #
...
Both have good man pages.
And "info" pages.
Gack!
X'-) Try "pinfo" instead of "info". The human interface is ussable ;-) - -- Cheers, Carlos E. R. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHXuUCtTMYHG2NR9URAhfqAJkBK0Wq2rlsELePMkjhO/5CwmGkVACdGfgX QEH1WZnfgnDc605lph0RFEY= =U2bT -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org