Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 00:51:05 -0600, J Moore wrote: I agree that it's easy enough to do a search, and discover what ntpd is actually doing. That was actually accomplished within the first 2-3 responses to my OP - that was the easy part :) I now understand what the author *intended* in the log message. So, now that you know what it means, you are going to go on an on and on and on Any sympathy you ever had (as if!) is gone. A fanatic is one who redoubles his efforts as he loses sight of his goal. -- Ambrose Bierce plonk From the land down under: Australia. Do we look umop apisdn from up over? Do NOT CC me - I am subscribed to the list. Replies to the sender address will fail except from the list-server.
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 07:44:39PM +1100, the unit calling itself Rod.. Whitworth wrote: On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 00:51:05 -0600, J Moore wrote: I agree that it's easy enough to do a search, and discover what ntpd is actually doing. That was actually accomplished within the first 2-3 responses to my OP - that was the easy part :) I now understand what the author *intended* in the log message. So, now that you know what it means, you are going to go on an on and on and on Any sympathy you ever had (as if!) is gone. A fanatic is one who redoubles his efforts as he loses sight of his goal. -- Ambrose Bierce plonk You are most probably correct.
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:58:28AM -0800, the unit calling itself Greg Thomas wrote: On 11/15/05, J Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:59:07AM +0800, the unit calling itself Lars Hansson wrote: On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:48:38 -0600 J Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At least it's not incorrect. How about: 1) local clock error=XXs, adjusting or, 2) adjusting local clock, error=XXs Error? There's no error. As many people have said before, the current log message is correct. PEBKAC. It really doesn't matter how many people say it. The words are defined in any English dictionary, and the log message is an incorrect description of what is being done. But it's a free world - you do have the option to dwell in ignorance. What part of adjusting do you not understand? Nowhere in the log message does it say that that adjusting is finished. You are just being obnoxious for obnoxious' sake because you didn't get your way. Greg No, Greg - I'm not trying to be obnoxious for obnoxious' sake - are you? What part of the definition of the word by to you not understand? Have you looked the word up in a dictionary? Have you imagined yourself in a situation where you were standing in front of a clock, and someone said to you, adjust that clock by 30 minutes, Greg. Are you telling me that you would turn to this person, and say, I'm sorry, but I don't understand what that means... do you mean change the time from 12:00 to 12:30, or do you mean change the clock by a tiny amount? What part of that do you not understand, Greg? Huh? I'd really like for you to explain the source of your confusion to the entire friggin' world here. Were you sick that day when the teacher went over this? Now, that said - i want you to leave me the f**k alone, and go somewhere else to get your English lessons. Jay
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On 2005/11/18 17:53:45, J Moore wrote: No, Greg - I'm not trying to be obnoxious for obnoxious' sake - are you? What part of the definition of the word by to you not understand? Have you looked the word up in a dictionary? Have you imagined yourself in a situation where you were standing in front of a clock, and someone said to you, adjust that clock by 30 minutes, Greg. 'adjusting' is a good choice, since a search on list archives using that as a keyword will find plenty of explanation... ntpd(8) *may* benefit from a few explanatory words, although that's debatable, since adjtime(2) is referenced and explains things well enough.
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
[i was trying to stay away, but can't.] On 11/18/05, J Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:58:28AM -0800, the unit calling itself Greg Thomas wrote: What part of adjusting do you not understand? Nowhere in the log message does it say that that adjusting is finished. You are just being obnoxious for obnoxious' sake because you didn't get your way. Greg No, Greg - I'm not trying to be obnoxious for obnoxious' sake - are you? What part of the definition of the word by to you not understand? Have you looked the word up in a dictionary? Have you imagined yourself in a situation where you were standing in front of a clock, and someone said to you, adjust that clock by 30 minutes, Greg. the log message says adjusting. that's the present participle (not to be confused with gerunds). it means not done yet. q: what are you doing in front of the clock? a1: i adjust the time (this instant only) -- no a2: i adjusted the time -- no a3: i will adjust the time -- no a4: i'm adjusting the time -- we have a winner. will you be done adjusting the time the instant that the sentence is out of your mouth? or will the adjusting [gerund form here] continue for some time after the statement is issued?
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
Ted Unangst: [i was trying to stay away, but can't.] I've never really trusted prepositions ;) By and by, stand by that clock and adjust it by 30 minutes, by whatever means and by whatever rubric you deem appropriate. By which direction, I wonder. On 11/18/05, J Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:58:28AM -0800, the unit calling itself Greg Thomas wrote: What part of adjusting do you not understand? Nowhere in the log message does it say that that adjusting is finished. You are just being obnoxious for obnoxious' sake because you didn't get your way. Greg No, Greg - I'm not trying to be obnoxious for obnoxious' sake - are you? What part of the definition of the word by to you not understand? Have you looked the word up in a dictionary? Have you imagined yourself in a situation where you were standing in front of a clock, and someone said to you, adjust that clock by 30 minutes, Greg. the log message says adjusting. that's the present participle (not to be confused with gerunds). it means not done yet. q: what are you doing in front of the clock? a1: i adjust the time (this instant only) -- no a2: i adjusted the time -- no a3: i will adjust the time -- no a4: i'm adjusting the time -- we have a winner. will you be done adjusting the time the instant that the sentence is out of your mouth? or will the adjusting [gerund form here] continue for some time after the statement is issued?
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 01:02:11AM +, the unit calling itself Stuart Henderson wrote: On 2005/11/18 17:53:45, J Moore wrote: No, Greg - I'm not trying to be obnoxious for obnoxious' sake - are you? What part of the definition of the word by to you not understand? Have you looked the word up in a dictionary? Have you imagined yourself in a situation where you were standing in front of a clock, and someone said to you, adjust that clock by 30 minutes, Greg. 'adjusting' is a good choice, since a search on list archives using that as a keyword will find plenty of explanation... ntpd(8) *may* benefit from a few explanatory words, although that's debatable, since adjtime(2) is referenced and explains things well enough. I agree that it's easy enough to do a search, and discover what ntpd is actually doing. That was actually accomplished within the first 2-3 responses to my OP - that was the easy part :) I now understand what the author *intended* in the log message. In fact, I worry I shall never forget this lesson - to the point that I may begin doubting others when they make simple and unambiguous statements. For example: Wife: Wash the car. Me: Uh, do you mean the *entire* car, or just the front bumper? Broker: This year's premium is increasing by $1,000. Me: Uh, do you mean it's going up by $1 this year, and each year thereafter until the 1000th year? Doctor: You're 12 pounds overweight. Me: Uh, do you mean as of today, or sometime before I die? Guard: Leave the building Me: Uh, do you mean take one step toward the door, and wait for further instructions, or do you mean go to the front door, and exit? Discovering the intended meaning of the ntpd log message was easy enough. The point that seems to be causing most of the name-calling and controversy is this: If a message or instruction is ambiguous or vague or contains unfamiliar words or concepts, then I would expect to have to do a little research to reach an understanding of its meaning. However if a statement is clear and concise, and contains no new words or concepts then I tend to take it at face value, and I don't do any research. I don't think I am alone in this practice (although...). There also seem to be quite a few (several of them have written me off-list) who maintain that the phrase in the log message is either: a) a clear and correct description of ntpd's adjustment, or b) ambiguous or fuzzy enough to warrant research to find out what it really means. I maintain that the message adjusting clock by XXs is neither of the above. I'll also say that I don't consider myself to be an authority on the English language (I don't think you have to be to divine the meaning of the phrase in question). But since there seems to be no end to the controversy, insults and name-calling in this forum, and I'm getting really tired of the discussion, I propose to settle the matter as follows: 1. I will place a cashier's check in the amount of $2,000 in escrow with a trusted third party TBD; I will call this the OpenBSD Good Grammar Prize. The Prize will in effect be my wager that the subject ntpd log message is clearly inaccurate. 2. Anyone who wishes to wager to the contrary may likewise place a cashier's check in the amount of $2,000 (US) with the same trusted third party. 3. Final judgement as to the meaning of the ntpd log message will be vested with a panel of judges. Qualifications and selection criteria for the judges is TBD, but all judges will be drawn from the faculty of the English department at an accredited university in the US. 4. Distribution of the wagers will be made following the judge's final decision. Distribution will be as follows: a) If the judges agree with my interpretation, my $2,000 check is returned to me. The other wager's $2,000 is donated to the OpenBSD project on the condition that the log message be changed to TBD. (That's why it's called The OpenBSD Good Grammar Prize). If the OpenBSD team declines to make the change, then the other wager's $2,000 will be donated to the Free Software Foundation. b) If the judges disagree with my interpretation, my $2,000 check will be sent to either the other wager, the OpenBSD project, or any other organization that he designates. The other wager's check will be returned to him. In any case, the best I can do is break even. The other wager can capture the cash for himself, donate it to OpenBSD, donate it to the American Literacy Council, or whatever... 5. The judges will need some written guidance on how to conduct their evaluation. Whoever wishes to wager should also submit their proposed criteria. I've drafted some instructions to the judges below that can be used as a point of departure. So let's get to it, ladies and gentlemen... are there any players? Draft Instructions to Panel of Judges: Once impaneled, each of the judges will be instructed that their mission is to evaluate a simple phrase
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:46:40PM -0800, the unit calling itself Ted Unangst wrote: [i was trying to stay away, but can't.] On 11/18/05, J Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:58:28AM -0800, the unit calling itself Greg Thomas wrote: What part of adjusting do you not understand? Nowhere in the log message does it say that that adjusting is finished. You are just being obnoxious for obnoxious' sake because you didn't get your way. Greg No, Greg - I'm not trying to be obnoxious for obnoxious' sake - are you? What part of the definition of the word by to you not understand? Have you looked the word up in a dictionary? Have you imagined yourself in a situation where you were standing in front of a clock, and someone said to you, adjust that clock by 30 minutes, Greg. the log message says adjusting. that's the present participle (not to be confused with gerunds). it means not done yet. Agreed, and it's definitely not a gerund q: what are you doing in front of the clock? a1: i adjust the time (this instant only) -- no a2: i adjusted the time -- no a3: i will adjust the time -- no a4: i'm adjusting the time -- we have a winner. will you be done adjusting the time the instant that the sentence is out of your mouth? or will the adjusting [gerund form here] continue for some time after the statement is issued? You have ignored the word by in the log message... according to Webster, by = in the amount of Therefore: adjusting... by = adjusting in the amount of
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
My wife is an English Major, so I eventually had to ask her... and she feels the message is correct. I did have to explain it to her in detail though so I guess initial confusion is understandable. Prolonged confusion, however, is not. Johan On 11/18/05, J Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Nov 18, 2005 at 05:46:40PM -0800, the unit calling itself Ted Unangst wrote: [i was trying to stay away, but can't.] On 11/18/05, J Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:58:28AM -0800, the unit calling itself Greg Thomas wrote: What part of adjusting do you not understand? Nowhere in the log message does it say that that adjusting is finished. You are just being obnoxious for obnoxious' sake because you didn't get your way. Greg No, Greg - I'm not trying to be obnoxious for obnoxious' sake - are you? What part of the definition of the word by to you not understand? Have you looked the word up in a dictionary? Have you imagined yourself in a situation where you were standing in front of a clock, and someone said to you, adjust that clock by 30 minutes, Greg. the log message says adjusting. that's the present participle (not to be confused with gerunds). it means not done yet. Agreed, and it's definitely not a gerund q: what are you doing in front of the clock? a1: i adjust the time (this instant only) -- no a2: i adjusted the time -- no a3: i will adjust the time -- no a4: i'm adjusting the time -- we have a winner. will you be done adjusting the time the instant that the sentence is out of your mouth? or will the adjusting [gerund form here] continue for some time after the statement is issued? You have ignored the word by in the log message... according to Webster, by = in the amount of Therefore: adjusting... by = adjusting in the amount of
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 08:51:12AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: This adujsting by information is not available to ntpd. ntpd requests an adjustment using the adjtim(2) system call. The argument is the actual offset. It is up to the kernel to decide how fast the adjustment will be done. Ah. In that case, I'd like to see the following syslog lines: Tue Nov 15 20:31:33 NTPD clock is 60.000356s behind, calling adjtim() ... Tue Nov 15 22:48:33 NTPD clock is 1.001856s ahead, calling adjtim() Ted -- It's not true unless it makes you laugh, but you don't understand it until it makes you weep. Eukleia: Ted Walther Address: 5690 Pioneer Ave, Burnaby, BC V5H2X6 (Canada) Contact: 604-430-4973 Website: http://reactor-core.org/ Puritan: Purity of faith, Purity of doctrine Puritan: Sola Scriptura, Tota Scriptura Love is a sharp sword. Hold it by the right end.
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
ahead, behind?.. come on. are syslog messages some kind of belletristic literature? how about the following? Tue Nov 15 20:31:33 ntpd adjtime(-60.000356) i know, the case is actually closed, just kidding :-) On 11/16/05, Ted Walther [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'd like to see the following syslog lines: Tue Nov 15 20:31:33 NTPD clock is 60.000356s behind, calling adjtim() ... Tue Nov 15 22:48:33 NTPD clock is 1.001856s ahead, calling adjtim()
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
From: Ted Walther [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 08:51:12AM +0100, Otto Moerbeek wrote: This adujsting by information is not available to ntpd. ntpd requests an adjustment using the adjtim(2) system call. The argument is the actual offset. It is up to the kernel to decide how fast the adjustment will be done. Ah. In that case, I'd like to see the following syslog lines: Tue Nov 15 20:31:33 NTPD clock is 60.000356s behind, calling adjtim() ... Tue Nov 15 22:48:33 NTPD clock is 1.001856s ahead, calling adjtim() And I'd like a gold-plated commode. What gives anyone the impression that things like this are up for public input and democratic vote? This is one of the stupidest points that has ever been brought to the list. Live with the log message. It's functional as it is. It's been working for months. It was unclear to one guy who couldn't grok what it was trying to say. Don't make stupid suggestions as to what you'd like it to aesthetically appear as. Especially when you don't understand the implications of what you're asking for. And if you don't like it, feel free to edit the source code and compile your way to happiness. DS
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
Nick Holland [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: 'adjusting local clock rate to compensate XXs offset 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 Oh, come on. [...] Log entries should be clear and short: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 Nov 15 16:16:16 fluffy ntpd[18366]: adjusting local clock by -0.137358s And fit on one line when possible. Excellent point. fits nicely in an 80 col screen (and my 72 char message width). Now, let's look at yours: Nov 15 16:16:16 fluffy ntpd[18366]: adjusting local clock rate to compensate -0.137358s offset Whoopsie, you wrapped. Your wording sucks, too. You convey no more info, just as confusing, and you made the message WORSE on at least two separate ways. BT. You lose. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012 Nov 15 16:16:16 fluffy ntpd[18366]: adj rate to reduce -0.137358s offset The key word here is 'rate'. The current msg implies adjusting the time. That was one of the flaws in the original ntpd, it would step the time frequently in response to server jitter, often overshot and stepped back in the opposite direction after a bit. Time wasn't monotonic, and what showed up in the log files was time steps. The new implementation is much better. Thanks, Henning! If there is something worse than the general level of illiteracy in the computer industry, it has to be the people PRETENDING to be sophisticated in human communications who are actually quite inept at it. Discussions like this one go so far to demonstrate this... Nick. (doing my darnedest to prove my own point) :-) -- KBK Jim. I think he twitched!
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 01:09 -0800, Ted Walther wrote: Ah. In that case, I'd like to see the following syslog lines: It's not going to change. --- Lars Hansson
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On 11/15/05, J Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on, Shane - did you ever take a friggin' course in English? Are you telling me that the passage above makes the following one-liner clear: 'adjusting local clock by XXs' The word 'by' is a preposition with a specific meaning in the context of its use... it means in the amount of... but that's not what it means here, is it? No, it does not. Therefore, the log entry is *inaccurate*. come on, if you are a native speaker (as if that mattered), and fluent _reader_, you'd have noticed the words of Alexander Hall in this thread: It is changing it by 60 seconds, but very slowly. That means: the clock is changed by the amount of 60 sec, but not immediately. Which is fine in my book, because I don't like time jumps (they are soo confusing). And it should be correct english, which, of course, I am not to judge, since my last friggin' course in English was back in the days I went to school. --knitti So there is no crisis to be averted here, Shane. A developer for whom English is probably a second language mis-used the language, and created confusion. OK, that's cool... but what escapes me is this comment: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-miscm=110202770603752w=2 --- so I'll change log_info(adjusting local clock by %fs, d); into log_info(now kindly asking the kernel to adjust the clock by %f seconds but it will not do so at once so maybe it takes a while, d); --- I gather that he rejected the consensus that his choice of words was confusing? I don't know who Henning is, and I don't know what he voted no to, but if he voted against a clear log message, then he voted yes to confusion. Come on. You've been haunting these lists for long enough to know who Henning is. Cut the theatrics. No theatrics intended - since the OP, I've been informed that Henning wrote some or all of the code in ntpd. That's great - I love the code, I think his English needs some work. Jay
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:23:00AM +0100, the unit calling itself Henning Brauer wrote: 'adjusting local clock by XXs' The word 'by' is a preposition with a specific meaning in the context of its use... it means in the amount of... but that's not what it means here, is it? No, it does not. Therefore, the log entry is *inaccurate*. it is perfectly accurate. it says adjusting by, and that is what it does. it does not say hard setting or anything. I won't change the log message, case closed. It *is* an inaccurate statement of what ntpd is doing to the system's time. ntpd is your product - if you're happy with this little flaw, then that's fine - leave it as is. But again, The emperor has no clothes! Jay PS - It would seem mind closed would be more accurate description of this situation than case closed, eh?
RE: Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:20:07 On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:23:00AM +0100, the unit calling itself Henning Brauer wrote: 'adjusting local clock by XXs' The word 'by' is a preposition with a specific meaning in the context of its use... it means in the amount of... but that's not what it means here, is it? No, it does not. Therefore, the log entry is *inaccurate*. it is perfectly accurate. it says adjusting by, and that is what it does. it does not say hard setting or anything. I won't change the log message, case closed. It *is* an inaccurate statement of what ntpd is doing to the system's time. ntpd is your product - if you're happy with this little flaw, then that's fine - leave it as is. But again, The emperor has no clothes! Jay PS - It would seem mind closed would be more accurate description of this situation than case closed, eh? The message is 'adjusting local clock by XXs' The message is NOT 'adjusted local clock by XXs' It's been a long time since English classes, but seems like 'adjusted' refers to something that has been done, while 'adjusting' refers to an ongoing operation. There is no reason to assume that something that 'adjustinjg' refers to a completed operation.
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
J, On 16/11/2005, at 1:20 AM, J Moore wrote: It *is* an inaccurate statement of what ntpd is doing to the system's time. ntpd is your product - if you're happy with this little flaw, then that's fine - leave it as is. But again, The emperor has no clothes! The word adjusting does not imply an instantaneous action or completed action, because the ing on the end implies that the process is still taking place. If the line said adjusted by, then you would have a point. But it doesn't, so you don't. It seems that Henning's English is better than yours. Can this be dropped now? Or do you need to continue making a big deal out of nothing? Shane J Pearson
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
Shane J Pearson wrote: J, On 15/11/2005, at 9:42 AM, J Moore wrote: Prior discussions notwithstanding, the fact is that the log messages are misleading. I *understand* now... if the log messages were written differently, I never would've had to ask. Reasonable person scenario: o Notice odd ntpd log entries. o #man ntpd o Notice SECOND paragraph says: ntpd uses the adjtime(2) system call to correct the local system time without causing time jumps. Adjustments larger than 128ms are logged using syslog(3). The threshold value is chosen to avoid having local clock drift thrash the log files. o Crisis averted. Even I remember the prior thread about ntpd log messages. Jay should be happy he has the option of changing the log message himself, even though the ntpd manual page explains the situation clearly. The code for ntpd is readily available.
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
knitti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 11/15/05, J Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on, Shane - did you ever take a friggin' course in English? Are you telling me that the passage above makes the following one-liner clear: 'adjusting local clock by XXs' Sorry, Henning, but I didn't understand the error message, either, until I read the man pages. It's certainly not a big deal, but it's easy enough to polish the priceless msg next time you're in there. 'adjusting local clock rate to compensate XXs offset -- KBK
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 09:27:33AM -0500, the unit calling itself Bakken, Luke wrote: Shane J Pearson wrote: J, On 15/11/2005, at 9:42 AM, J Moore wrote: Prior discussions notwithstanding, the fact is that the log messages are misleading. I *understand* now... if the log messages were written differently, I never would've had to ask. Reasonable person scenario: o Notice odd ntpd log entries. o #man ntpd o Notice SECOND paragraph says: ntpd uses the adjtime(2) system call to correct the local system time without causing time jumps. Adjustments larger than 128ms are logged using syslog(3). The threshold value is chosen to avoid having local clock drift thrash the log files. o Crisis averted. Even I remember the prior thread about ntpd log messages. Jay should be happy he has the option of changing the log message himself, even though the ntpd manual page explains the situation clearly. The code for ntpd is readily available. I am very happy about that Luke - I really am. I agree with everything you've said. What's prolonged this discussion is that some people insist that the phrase in the log message can somehow be justified as being both clear and correct. It is neither, and those who maintain otherwise are either: a) ignorant of the English language, or b) like the officials sent to preview the emperor's new clothes (http://www.andersen.sdu.dk/vaerk/hersholt/TheEmperorsNewClothes_e.html) Hmmm... I wonder if a project has ever forked over the grammar in the log message? :) Jay
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:14:56PM +0100, the unit calling itself knitti wrote: The word 'by' is a preposition with a specific meaning in the context of its use... it means in the amount of... but that's not what it means here, is it? No, it does not. Therefore, the log entry is *inaccurate*. come on, if you are a native speaker (as if that mattered), and fluent _reader_, you'd have noticed the words of Alexander Hall in this thread: It is changing it by 60 seconds, but very slowly. That means: the clock is changed by the amount of 60 sec, but not immediately. Which is fine in my book, because I don't like time jumps (they are soo confusing). And it should be correct english, which, of course, I am not to judge, since my last friggin' course in English was back in the days I went to school. --knitti You missed the point. I fear your problems run deeper... can you not read and understand the posts in this thread?
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
Kurt B. Kaiser wrote: knitti [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: On 11/15/05, J Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Come on, Shane - did you ever take a friggin' course in English? Are you telling me that the passage above makes the following one-liner clear: 'adjusting local clock by XXs' Sorry, Henning, but I didn't understand the error message, either, until I read the man pages. It's certainly not a big deal, but it's easy enough to polish the priceless msg next time you're in there. 'adjusting local clock rate to compensate XXs offset 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 Oh, come on. Your Magic Message there is subject to the EXACT SAME misinterpretation. Both key on missing the use of adjusting rather than adjusted. As has already been pointed out, adjusting implies on-going, adjusted implies done. People will take compensate to mean compensated and wonder why their clock is STILL off. That short message is technically correct, and while it can be misinterpreted, just about every short summary is also subject to the EXACT SAME misinterpretation. The ONLY reason you think this line is better is because you didn't understand the message and you think it isn't your fault. So you find out what is going on, you change some words, it becomes obvious to you. What you fail to see is that if you understand what is going on, it is OBVIOUS all along. If you don't understand what is going on, it will take several paragraphs for every log entry. Log entries should be clear and short: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 Nov 15 16:16:16 fluffy ntpd[18366]: adjusting local clock by -0.137358s fits nicely in an 80 col screen (and my 72 char message width). Now, let's look at yours: Nov 15 16:16:16 fluffy ntpd[18366]: adjusting local clock rate to compensate -0.137358s offset Whoopsie, you wrapped. Your wording sucks, too. You convey no more info, just as confusing, and you made the message WORSE on at least two separate ways. BT. You lose. If there is something worse than the general level of illiteracy in the computer industry, it has to be the people PRETENDING to be sophisticated in human communications who are actually quite inept at it. Discussions like this one go so far to demonstrate this... Nick. (doing my darnedest to prove my own point)
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
Guys give it up. He's being a jerk, and yanking your chain. The code is not going to change.
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 08:07:21PM -0500, the unit calling itself Nick Holland wrote: Sorry, Henning, but I didn't understand the error message, either, until I read the man pages. It's certainly not a big deal, but it's easy enough to polish the priceless msg next time you're in there. 'adjusting local clock rate to compensate XXs offset 12345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890 Oh, come on. Your Magic Message there is subject to the EXACT SAME misinterpretation. Both key on missing the use of adjusting rather than adjusted. As has already been pointed out, adjusting implies on-going, adjusted implies done. People will take compensate to mean compensated and wonder why their clock is STILL off. That short message is technically correct, and while it can be misinterpreted, just about every short summary is also subject to the EXACT SAME misinterpretation. The ONLY reason you think this line is better is because you didn't understand the message and you think it isn't your fault. So you find out what is going on, you change some words, it becomes obvious to you. What you fail to see is that if you understand what is going on, it is OBVIOUS all along. If you don't understand what is going on, it will take several paragraphs for every log entry. Log entries should be clear and short: I don't understand your logic, and your tone is abusive and confrontational. If you just want everyone to shut-up, and agree with whatever you say, you should just come out and say so. If you want to build a logical argument to support your thesis, you have fallen short. For example, your simple-minded rule for log entries... problem is that short and clear are often competing objectives. For example, from the very same logfile, let's look at an entry from dhcpd: Nov 15 04:13:30 opie dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 192.168.1.207 from 00:e0:4c:cf:15:90 via sis1 Now that one doesn't fit on a single line, does it? How would you propose exactly to make that entry both clear and 80 chars? If there is something worse than the general level of illiteracy in the computer industry, it has to be the people PRETENDING to be sophisticated in human communications who are actually quite inept at it. Discussions like this one go so far to demonstrate this... Amen.
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:08:54 -0500 Kurt B. Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, Henning, but I didn't understand the error message, either, until I read the man pages. Hey guess what, that's exactly what man pages are for. If something is unclear you look it up. End of story. It's certainly not a big deal, but it's easy enough to polish the priceless msg next time you're in there. 'adjusting local clock rate to compensate XXs offset That's even more confusing. --- Lars Hansson
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, J Moore wrote: Nov 15 04:13:30 opie dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 192.168.1.207 from 00:e0:4c:cf:15:90 via sis1 Now that one doesn't fit on a single line, does it? How would you propose exactly to make that entry both clear and 80 chars? This message is long because it conveys a quantity of useful information, not because it is full of redundant verbiage. -d
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 09:53:33AM +0800, the unit calling itself Lars Hansson wrote: On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 15:08:54 -0500 Kurt B. Kaiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, Henning, but I didn't understand the error message, either, until I read the man pages. Hey guess what, that's exactly what man pages are for. If something is unclear you look it up. End of story. Your comment brings us full circle on this thread... that's the whole point: if the log message were clear you wouldn't have to read a man page to divine its meaning. So, yes - I agree with you: if something is unclear, you look it up. In this particular case however, the log message *was* clear. Unfortunately, it is also worded incorrectly. In this case, I did read the man page, and frankly, I think it's a little fuzzy also. At least it wasn't clear enough to revise the false impression that the log entry created. It's certainly not a big deal, but it's easy enough to polish the priceless msg next time you're in there. 'adjusting local clock rate to compensate XXs offset That's even more confusing. At least it's not incorrect. How about: 1) local clock error=XXs, adjusting or, 2) adjusting local clock, error=XXs
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 01:22:00PM +1100, the unit calling itself Damien Miller wrote: On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, J Moore wrote: Nov 15 04:13:30 opie dhcpd: DHCPREQUEST for 192.168.1.207 from 00:e0:4c:cf:15:90 via sis1 Now that one doesn't fit on a single line, does it? How would you propose exactly to make that entry both clear and 80 chars? This message is long because it conveys a quantity of useful information, not because it is full of redundant verbiage. So, your point is that you make the message just long enough to communicate useful information - is that correct?
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:48:38 -0600 J Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At least it's not incorrect. How about: 1) local clock error=XXs, adjusting or, 2) adjusting local clock, error=XXs Error? There's no error. As many people have said before, the current log message is correct. PEBKAC. --- Lars Hansson
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 10:06:39PM -0600, J Moore wrote: On Wed, Nov 16, 2005 at 10:59:07AM +0800, the unit calling itself Lars Hansson wrote: On Tue, 15 Nov 2005 20:48:38 -0600 J Moore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: At least it's not incorrect. How about: 1) local clock error=XXs, adjusting or, 2) adjusting local clock, error=XXs Error? There's no error. As many people have said before, the current log message is correct. PEBKAC. It really doesn't matter how many people say it. The words are defined in any English dictionary, and the log message is an incorrect description of what is being done. But it's a free world - you do have the option to dwell in ignorance. Actually, the English of the log message is grammatically correct. But it is misleading, because humans have limitations and don't always parse grammar correctly. Personally I'd like to see a log message like this: Tue Nov 15 20:31:33 NTPD clock is 60.000356s off, adjusting by 0.0128s Ted -- It's not true unless it makes you laugh, but you don't understand it until it makes you weep. Eukleia: Ted Walther Address: 5690 Pioneer Ave, Burnaby, BC V5H2X6 (Canada) Contact: 604-430-4973 Website: http://reactor-core.org/ Puritan: Purity of faith, Purity of doctrine Puritan: Sola Scriptura, Tota Scriptura Love is a sharp sword. Hold it by the right end.
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
Personally I'd like to see a log message like this: Tue Nov 15 20:31:33 NTPD clock is 60.000356s off, adjusting by 0.0128s I actually like this one... makes sense and is still very short and concise
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Johan wrote: Personally I'd like to see a log message like this: Tue Nov 15 20:31:33 NTPD clock is 60.000356s off, adjusting by 0.0128s I actually like this one... makes sense and is still very short and concise This adujsting by information is not available to ntpd. ntpd requests an adjustment using the adjtim(2) system call. The argument is the actual offset. It is up to the kernel to decide how fast the adjustment will be done. Both Theo and Henning have stated very clearly the log message is not going to change. So there's no point in coming up with new suggestions. -Otto
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
J Moore wrote: I just installed 3.8 on a Soekris net4801 that's been laying around for a while (unused, unpowered). I noticed after install that time was off by like 5 months, so I set it to within a few minutes of current time/date from the wall clock. I've been checking the logs, and this is what I'm seeing... this has been going on for about 8 hours now. Why is ntpd having to make 60+ second adjustments every 3-5 minutes? It would appear the clock on the Soekris is really BFU. Nov 14 06:30:10 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -91.931803s Nov 14 06:34:22 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -90.983786s ntpd does not immediately set the time, but uses adjtime(2) instead. So your time is getting closer and closer to being accurate. man ntpd man adjtime You might be interested in the -s switch of ntpd, which is set by default by rc(8). /Alexander
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
J Moore wrote: I just installed 3.8 on a Soekris net4801 that's been laying around for a while (unused, unpowered). I noticed after install that time was off by like 5 months, so I set it to within a few minutes of current time/date from the wall clock. I've been checking the logs, and this is what I'm seeing... this has been going on for about 8 hours now. Why is ntpd having to make 60+ second adjustments every 3-5 minutes? It would appear the clock on the Soekris is really BFU. [...] Nov 14 06:30:10 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -91.931803s Nov 14 06:34:22 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -90.983786s [...] Nov 14 08:24:20 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -64.294286s Nov 14 08:27:59 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -63.612736s OpenNTPd is working as expected. It is using adjtime(2) to skew the clock, not set it -- in your case, it is slowing it down until it is synced. Run rdate(8) to speed up the syncing process the hard way (the clock will jump.) Read up on ntpd(8)'s parameter `-s' in case you ever need to set a clock that is way off. Moritz
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
Alexander Hall wrote: You might be interested in the -s switch of ntpd, which is set by default by rc(8). Not any longer. It was removed again to not tempt people to interrupt the booting process via CTRL+C in case it hangs for the one or other reason. It's easy to add back to ntpd_flags in rc.conf.local, though, for those who want it. Moritz
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
Moritz Grimm wrote: Alexander Hall wrote: You might be interested in the -s switch of ntpd, which is set by default by rc(8). Not any longer. It was removed again to not tempt people to interrupt the booting process via CTRL+C in case it hangs for the one or other reason. It's easy to add back to ntpd_flags in rc.conf.local, though, for those who want it. Ah, ok. Glad to hear that actually; I always thought it seemed a little strange to have it set by default when that is not the default behaviour of the daemon itself. I have always set ``-s'' in rc.conf.local anyway. :-) /Alexander
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 03:55:21PM +0100, the unit calling itself Moritz Grimm wrote: I just installed 3.8 on a Soekris net4801 that's been laying around for a while (unused, unpowered). I noticed after install that time was off by like 5 months, so I set it to within a few minutes of current time/date from the wall clock. I've been checking the logs, and this is what I'm seeing... this has been going on for about 8 hours now. Why is ntpd having to make 60+ second adjustments every 3-5 minutes? It would appear the clock on the Soekris is really BFU. [...] Nov 14 06:30:10 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -91.931803s Nov 14 06:34:22 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -90.983786s [...] Nov 14 08:24:20 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -64.294286s Nov 14 08:27:59 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -63.612736s OpenNTPd is working as expected. It is using adjtime(2) to skew the clock, not set it -- in your case, it is slowing it down until it is synced. Hmmm... OK - I read man for adjtime(2), and I appreciate your explanation with skewing vs setting. However, the output says adjusting local clock by XX s... that seems pretty straightforward to me. I think the output is just misleading; it should say: adjusting local clock to reduce error of XXs If you told someone you were adjusting their clock by 60 seconds, I think most English-speaking people would conclude that you just changed the clock by a value of 60 seconds - not that I am making an incremental adjustment in your clock to reduce the amount of error such that it is less than 60 seconds. Some additional entries from my log show that in fact ntpd did finally reach closure as of 12:57:40 today (yeah!) Nov 14 12:29:50 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -5.494670s Nov 14 12:34:05 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -4.846304s Nov 14 12:37:03 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -3.931653s Nov 14 12:39:18 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -3.201504s Nov 14 12:43:19 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -2.477988s Nov 14 12:46:12 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -1.698618s Nov 14 12:49:53 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -0.904406s Nov 14 12:52:53 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -0.227882s Nov 14 12:57:40 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by 0.264980s Nov 14 12:57:40 opie ntpd[14058]: clock is now synced Nov 14 12:59:30 opie ntpd[14058]: peer 66.11.161.129 now invalid Nov 14 13:00:48 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by 0.652100s Nov 14 13:05:04 opie ntpd[4133]: adjusting local clock by -0.271403s This is all very cool, but I still think the log messages are misleading. Run rdate(8) to speed up the syncing process the hard way (the clock will jump.) Read up on ntpd(8)'s parameter `-s' in case you ever need to set a clock that is way off. Thanks for that... as it turns out, the wall clock that I referred to when I set the time using 'date' (immediately after the install) was off real time by about 120 seconds... ntpd took approximately 12 hours to work this off. This is fine - the log messages just threw me off. Thanks, Jay
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
J Moore wrote: OpenNTPd is working as expected. It is using adjtime(2) to skew the clock, not set it -- in your case, it is slowing it down until it is synced. Hmmm... OK - I read man for adjtime(2), and I appreciate your explanation with skewing vs setting. However, the output says adjusting local clock by XX s... that seems pretty straightforward to me. I think the output is just misleading; it should say: adjusting local clock to reduce error of XXs If you told someone you were adjusting their clock by 60 seconds, I think most English-speaking people would conclude that you just changed the clock by a value of 60 seconds - not that I am making an incremental adjustment in your clock to reduce the amount of error such that it is less than 60 seconds. It is changing it by 60 seconds, but very slowly. While still adjusting (remember, slowly), the time is checked again, and readjusted (slowly). http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-miscm=110201623230329w=2 Not really worth discussing again, since Henning voted ``no'' (kinda). /Alexander
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 09:56:38PM +0100, the unit calling itself Alexander Hall wrote: J Moore wrote: OpenNTPd is working as expected. It is using adjtime(2) to skew the clock, not set it -- in your case, it is slowing it down until it is synced. Hmmm... OK - I read man for adjtime(2), and I appreciate your explanation with skewing vs setting. However, the output says adjusting local clock by XX s... that seems pretty straightforward to me. I think the output is just misleading; it should say: adjusting local clock to reduce error of XXs If you told someone you were adjusting their clock by 60 seconds, I think most English-speaking people would conclude that you just changed the clock by a value of 60 seconds - not that I am making an incremental adjustment in your clock to reduce the amount of error such that it is less than 60 seconds. It is changing it by 60 seconds, but very slowly. While still adjusting (remember, slowly), the time is checked again, and readjusted (slowly). http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-miscm=110201623230329w=2 Not really worth discussing again, since Henning voted ``no'' (kinda). Prior discussions notwithstanding, the fact is that the log messages are misleading. I *understand* now... if the log messages were written differently, I never would've had to ask. I don't know who Henning is, and I don't know what he voted no to, but if he voted against a clear log message, then he voted yes to confusion. Jay
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 12:08:31AM +0100, Matthias Kilian wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 04:42:46PM -0600, J Moore wrote: I don't know who Henning is, and I don't know what he voted no to, but if he voted against a clear log message, then he voted yes to confusion. Just cvs log on /usr/src/usr.sbin/ntpd and you'll learn who Henning is (wrt ntpd). OK, so what did he vote no on? -- U.S. Encouraged by Vietnam Vote - Officials Cite 83% Turnout Despite Vietcong Terror - New York Times 9/3/1967
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
J, On 15/11/2005, at 9:42 AM, J Moore wrote: Prior discussions notwithstanding, the fact is that the log messages are misleading. I *understand* now... if the log messages were written differently, I never would've had to ask. Reasonable person scenario: o Notice odd ntpd log entries. o #man ntpd o Notice SECOND paragraph says: ntpd uses the adjtime(2) system call to correct the local system time without causing time jumps. Adjustments larger than 128ms are logged using syslog(3). The threshold value is chosen to avoid having local clock drift thrash the log files. o Crisis averted. I don't know who Henning is, and I don't know what he voted no to, but if he voted against a clear log message, then he voted yes to confusion. Come on. You've been haunting these lists for long enough to know who Henning is. Cut the theatrics. Shane J Pearsonshanejp netspace net au -|
Re: timekeeping on Soekris net4801 w/ ntpd. 3.8
On Tue, Nov 15, 2005 at 01:34:27PM +1100, the unit calling itself Shane J Pearson wrote: J, On 15/11/2005, at 9:42 AM, J Moore wrote: Prior discussions notwithstanding, the fact is that the log messages are misleading. I *understand* now... if the log messages were written differently, I never would've had to ask. Reasonable person scenario: o Notice odd ntpd log entries. o #man ntpd o Notice SECOND paragraph says: ntpd uses the adjtime(2) system call to correct the local system time without causing time jumps. Adjustments larger than 128ms are logged using syslog(3). The threshold value is chosen to avoid having local clock drift thrash the log files. o Crisis averted. Come on, Shane - did you ever take a friggin' course in English? Are you telling me that the passage above makes the following one-liner clear: 'adjusting local clock by XXs' The word 'by' is a preposition with a specific meaning in the context of its use... it means in the amount of... but that's not what it means here, is it? No, it does not. Therefore, the log entry is *inaccurate*. So there is no crisis to be averted here, Shane. A developer for whom English is probably a second language mis-used the language, and created confusion. OK, that's cool... but what escapes me is this comment: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=openbsd-miscm=110202770603752w=2 --- so I'll change log_info(adjusting local clock by %fs, d); into log_info(now kindly asking the kernel to adjust the clock by %f seconds but it will not do so at once so maybe it takes a while, d); --- I gather that he rejected the consensus that his choice of words was confusing? I don't know who Henning is, and I don't know what he voted no to, but if he voted against a clear log message, then he voted yes to confusion. Come on. You've been haunting these lists for long enough to know who Henning is. Cut the theatrics. No theatrics intended - since the OP, I've been informed that Henning wrote some or all of the code in ntpd. That's great - I love the code, I think his English needs some work. Jay
