On Sat, Nov 29, 2003 at 07:04:16AM +0100, Michael Nottebrock wrote: Content-Description: signed data > On Saturday 29 November 2003 05:57, Dag-Erling Sm?rgrav wrote: > > "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy_at_hub.org> writes: > > > as to ntpd/timed ... don't run either ... run ntpdate twice a day (11:59 > > > and 23:59) > > > > Don't Do That. It will lead to all kinds of trouble that will take > > you ages to figure out. Really, ntpd is so ridiculously easy to set > > up (especially if you already have ntpdate working) that there is no > > reason not to use it. > > FWIW, it can reproduce this on two machines (one 4.9-RELEASE, one 5.1-RELEASE) > which both run ntpd. Takes some 10 minutes on both before the first steps > backwards turn up. > > Unfortunately, both machines aren't very good datapoints because both have > pretty customized kernels and have -Os and -march optimized worlds/kernels... > > Both have kern.timecounter.hardware: ACPI-fast, too. Are all affected machines multi-processor? Kris
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:31 UTC