On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 11:08:11AM -0700, James Feeney wrote:
> You seem to be describing some kind of log message that has no meaning in
> isolation - like an episode of a TV show that makes no sense unless you've
> seen the entire series.
I think it has a meaning in isolation. It says that
William G. Unruh __| Canadian Institute for| Tel: +1(604)822-3273
Physics _|___ Advanced Research _| Fax: +1(604)822-5324
UBC, Vancouver,BC _|_ Program in Cosmology | un...@physics.ubc.ca
Canada V6T 1Z1 | and Gravity __|_ www.theory.physics.ubc.ca/
On Tue, 14 Nov 2017,
On 11/14/2017 01:23 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> Yes, the "system clock wrong by" messages were meant to be stacked on
> top of each other. If we change it to report the current remaining
> correction, it won't be clear how much the clock has drifted between
> the messages. If the log had
>
>
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 12:06:07PM -0800, Bill Unruh wrote:
> >
> > Bill, I really do not understand what point you are trying to present here,
> > with respect to the system log message. I was only suggesting that the log
> > message should be more clear as to, let us call it, "leading" and
Bill, I really do not understand what point you are trying to present here, with respect to the system log message. I
was only suggesting that the log message should be more clear as to, let us call it, "leading" and
"lagging", "forward" and "backward".
You are requesting something further.
Bill, I really do not understand what point you are trying to present here,
with respect to the system log message. I was only suggesting that the log
message should be more clear as to, let us call it, "leading" and "lagging",
"forward" and "backward".
On 11/09/2017 09:05 PM, Bill Unruh
William G. Unruh __| Canadian Institute for| Tel: +1(604)822-3273
Physics _|___ Advanced Research _| Fax: +1(604)822-5324
UBC, Vancouver,BC _|_ Program in Cosmology | un...@physics.ubc.ca
Canada V6T 1Z1 | and Gravity __|_ www.theory.physics.ubc.ca/
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017,
On 11/09/2017 02:22 PM, Bill Unruh wrote:
> That is unclear. Chrony knows that it is out by a certain amount. That is why
> it is slewing the clock, and in a few seconds or minutes the system time will
> be exactly what it thinks NTP time is. It now finds it is out by a second.
> Does it report
William G. Unruh __| Canadian Institute for| Tel: +1(604)822-3273
Physics _|___ Advanced Research _| Fax: +1(604)822-5324
UBC, Vancouver,BC _|_ Program in Cosmology | un...@physics.ubc.ca
Canada V6T 1Z1 | and Gravity __|_ www.theory.physics.ubc.ca/
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017,
On 11/09/2017 05:25 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> So, if there is a large adjustment running and a new measurement says
> the offset of the clock is not what expect (e.g. the clock or the
> server has drifted for some reason), should we report by how much the
> adjustment which is still running
On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 02:27:50PM -0700, James Feeney wrote:
> On 11/06/2017 09:17 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > For example, if the initial offset was 5 seconds and the system clock
> > was already corrected by 2 seconds when another measurement is made,
> > which says the offset of the system
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017, James Feeney wrote:
On 11/06/2017 09:17 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
From the other suggestions that have been made, I liked best "was
stepped backward/forward".
That's good too.
For example, if the initial offset was 5 seconds and the system clock
was already corrected
On 11/06/2017 09:17 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> From the other suggestions that have been made, I liked best "was
> stepped backward/forward".
That's good too.
> For example, if the initial offset was 5 seconds and the system clock
> was already corrected by 2 seconds when another measurement
On 10/31/2017 10:41 AM, James Feeney wrote:
> "ahead" and "behind" also will work for both the offset message and the> "was
> stepped" message.
Also:
forward / back
advanced / delayed
leading / lagging These are more traditional technical terms describing
offsets.
incremented /
On 10/31/2017 05:12 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>> For system logs messages
>> "ahead" / "behind" for offset
>> "fast" / "slow" for freq
> That looks good to me.
"ahead" and "behind" also will work for both the offset message and the "was
stepped" message.
> Another question is whether it's
On 10/30/2017 05:12 PM, Bill Unruh wrote:
> Yes, that occurs in the system logs (/var/log/messages, or journalctl ) and I
> do not parse those. There is virtually nothing there in the older versions of
> chrony. I go to the /var/log/chrony/* logs
Ok, I see. But that's a different thing
On 10/30/2017 02:42 PM, Bill Unruh wrote:
On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, James Feeney wrote:
On 10/30/2017 05:07 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
existing scripts that parse the log
I am not familiar with any of those scripts - who parses chrony log files? - so
my initial reaction is to be
On 10/30/2017 02:42 PM, Bill Unruh wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2017, James Feeney wrote:
>> On 10/30/2017 05:07 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>>> existing scripts that parse the log
>>
>> I am not familiar with any of those scripts - who parses chrony log files? -
>> so my initial reaction is to be
On 10/30/2017 05:07 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> existing scripts that parse the log
I am not familiar with any of those scripts - who parses chrony log files? - so
my initial reaction is to be unsympathetic. But I don't know - how important
is that?
> Do you think it would make sense to
On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 10:31:16AM -0600, James Feeney wrote:
> How about, rather than using the term "wrong", instead use the terms "fast"
> and "slow" to describe this quantity "1.693005 seconds"? Then the log
> message might read:
>
> chronyd[622]: System clock fast by 1.693005 seconds,
On 10/27/2017 11:10 AM, Bill Unruh wrote:
> ... Of course the sentence does not indicate what convention chrony uses (ie
> does
> the plus sign mean that the system clock is ahead or behind the true time) I>
> can never remember which convetion is used but I think it is UTC-systemclock.
Ha!
21 matches
Mail list logo
