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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
