Linda Walsh wrote:
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.
Offset is probably correlated to latency of both data and interrupts (which get masked in certain critical sections of code in the kernel). The newer (faster) hardware has lower latency for both. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org