In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
>The
>piix timecounter has a lower frequency than the TSC, but for some
>reason we mask it to 24 bits (16M cycles @ 3.5+ MHz = 4+ seconds).
We do this because the spec defines it as either 32 or 24 bit and some
24 bit implementations claim to ha
On Sun, 16 Feb 2003, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> Is it an expected feature that the system clock is not updated when
> the system is sitting in DDB?
Yes. Interrupts must be disabled while ddb is running, so the time
cannot be updated normally. Timecounting can mostly work if it is
driven by a timeco
On 2003-02-16 18:05, Kris Kennaway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is it an expected feature that the system clock is not updated when
> the system is sitting in DDB? I just had 8 machines sitting in DDB
> for about 20 minutes at boot (because of that &^@%&^ sysctl LOR),
> and ntpd refused to time-sy
Is it an expected feature that the system clock is not updated when
the system is sitting in DDB? I just had 8 machines sitting in DDB
for about 20 minutes at boot (because of that &^@%&^ sysctl LOR), and
ntpd refused to time-sync them when I continued, because the clock had
fallen too far behind:
