On 2006-12-17 07:05, Mark Hounschell wrote: > No NTP messages are going to tell you why your clock source is not > letting you keep reasonably accurate time. Don't you think a machine > without NTP can keep time? NTP has nothing to do with this problem. It > is only been suggested as a possible mask of the problem. Mark, I never *said* this was an ntp problem. Neither did I suggest that ntp messages will tell you much about the internal time; I merely said that ntpd logs more information. Of course I think a machine without ntp can keep time. I did, after all, suggest the OP stop his ntpd daemon before fetching the kernel time parameters and clock behaviour.
> When everything is working right all you will see is a message > indicating what clocksource is installed. It's when the kernel thinks > there is a problem with one or more of the clock sources it will spit > out meaningful info. > Though I don't know what checks the kernel makes, when the clock keeps a consistent rate, I doubt it will be logging much information. OP's system clock seems to be keeping a very consistent rate -- unfortunately, it's 178,900 ppm fast. It's nearly 2007, and we still don't have a decent high-speed clock <sigh> -- The best way to accelerate a computer running Windows is at 9.81 m/s² -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
