On Sat, Jan 29, 2000 at 02:35:43AM +0100, Ollivier Robert wrote:
> [I said about ntpd usage of sched_* functions:]
> > > We should make them standard IMO.
>
> According to John Polstra:
> > I agree.
>
> BTW, as the sched_* POSIX functions are now standard in GENERIC, I've decided
> along with t
[I said about ntpd usage of sched_* functions:]
> > We should make them standard IMO.
According to John Polstra:
> I agree.
BTW, as the sched_* POSIX functions are now standard in GENERIC, I've decided
along with the upgrade to ntpd 4.0.99b to re-enable them.
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: Th
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 05:44:57PM -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> We can point to the Internet's evolution of these "treehouse" organizations
> and show off how PROUD we are of them and those who support them.
> Let's start a nice short list, shall we?
>
> Network Solutions.
> ARIN.
> FreeBSD-
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 06:08:31PM -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:
> As for whoever the person is who force-removed me from the list, trust
> me on this - I won't forget that act, and until you're identified and
> permanently removed from both the list and the entire project you'll
> have no contribu
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 04:58:57PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> Karl, I was my hands of this conversation. You aren't listening.
>
> We have custom hardware. We're a control and measurement system. The
> <10ns is needed for that control and measurement part. The sync we
> get of the system cl
Karl, I was my hands of this conversation. You aren't listening.
We have custom hardware. We're a control and measurement system. The
<10ns is needed for that control and measurement part. The sync we
get of the system clock, like I said before, is on the order of a few
hundred ns on pentium
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 06:37:31PM -0500, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> > How many millions does Paol have to count in HIS bank as a result of this
> > shilling and "advocacy"?
> >
> > SOME OF US have *REAL* successes to point to - not just bullshit pats on
On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Karl Denninger wrote:
> How many millions does Paol have to count in HIS bank as a result of this
> shilling and "advocacy"?
>
> SOME OF US have *REAL* successes to point to - not just bullshit pats on the
> back.
Like eDNS, right?
--
- bill fumerola - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - B
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 06:31:22PM -0500, Bill Fumerola wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> > Why the hell Walnut Creek wastes their money on your type REMAINS beyond
> > my comprehension.
>
> It really hasn't been a problem for anyone but you. It's more successful,
> then s
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 03:05:49PM -0800, David Schwartz wrote:
>
> > Now explain to me how stability of your timing source ON THOSE MACHINES
> > is MATERIALLY different to any process WHICH THAT DEVICE MAY INTERACT WITH
> > between 10ns and 1us, AS SEEN FROM THE UNIX MACHINE.
>
> A battle
On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Karl Denninger wrote:
> Why the hell Walnut Creek wastes their money on your type REMAINS beyond
> my comprehension.
It really hasn't been a problem for anyone but you. It's more successful,
then say, alternative top level domain projects that have gone nowhere.
--
- bill
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 06:17:59PM -0500, Chuck Robey wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Karl Denninger wrote:
>
> > > If you intend to keep up this "sour grapes" attitude, despite all
> > > the helpful answers you have gotten so far, you should consider
> > > stopping before you have worn out your wel
Although your interaction is amusing, I subscribe to this mailing list to
keep up to date on -current and not to see the script for the latest
sitcom for geeks.
-Kip
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 03:13:10PM -0800, David O'Brien wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 04:53:55PM -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 11:49:08PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> ..snip..
> > > If you intend to keep up this "sour grapes" attitude, despite all
> > > the helpf
On Sun, 2 Jan 2000, Karl Denninger wrote:
> > If you intend to keep up this "sour grapes" attitude, despite all
> > the helpful answers you have gotten so far, you should consider
> > stopping before you have worn out your welcome.
> >
> > --
> > Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam me
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 04:53:55PM -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 11:49:08PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
..snip..
> > If you intend to keep up this "sour grapes" attitude, despite all
> > the helpful answers you have gotten so far, you should consider
> > stopping befor
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 03:50:35PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Karl Denninger writes:
> : Yes, you have HARDWARE timers that do that.
> :
> : So what?
> :
> : I'm talking about TIME SERVERS on UNIX machines.
>
> So am I.
>
> : You know, ntpd and friends? Yes, t
> Now explain to me how stability of your timing source ON THOSE MACHINES
> is MATERIALLY different to any process WHICH THAT DEVICE MAY INTERACT WITH
> between 10ns and 1us, AS SEEN FROM THE UNIX MACHINE.
A battle you would win is if you said, "synchronizing the time of other
UNIX machi
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>
>Yes, you have HARDWARE timers that do that.
>
>So what?
I have a commercially available PCI card which costs about the
same as a good diskdrive...
>I'm talking about TIME SERVERS on UNIX machines.
>
>You know, ntpd and friends? Yes, tha
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 11:49:08PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
> >On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 11:17:00PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
> >>
> >> >Why spend twice what Mr. Schwart
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Karl Denninger writes:
: Yes, you have HARDWARE timers that do that.
:
: So what?
:
: I'm talking about TIME SERVERS on UNIX machines.
So am I.
: You know, ntpd and friends? Yes, that.
That's one of the things in our application.
: Now explain to me how stabi
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 03:32:00PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Karl Denninger writes:
>> : Why spend twice what Mr. Schwartz seems to want to charge?
>>
>> Because we need a PPS that is < 10nS from the true st
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 11:17:00PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>>
>> >Why spend twice what Mr. Schwartz seems to want to charge?
>>
>> Well, suit your own political manifests as
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 03:42:24PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Karl Denninger writes:
> : And on what hardware do you think you can obtain 10ns resolution RELIABLY
> : at the software level in the Unix environment and under FreeBSD?
> :
> : Answer: NONE!
>
> WRONG
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Karl Denninger writes:
: And on what hardware do you think you can obtain 10ns resolution RELIABLY
: at the software level in the Unix environment and under FreeBSD?
:
: Answer: NONE!
WRONG.
: The actual usable resolution of a timing source is determined by the
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 11:17:00PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>
>
> >Why spend twice what Mr. Schwartz seems to want to charge?
> >
> >For the Motorola name? Sorry, the Batwing Menace to employee's rights was
> >long ago placed on my
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 03:32:00PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Karl Denninger writes:
> : Why spend twice what Mr. Schwartz seems to want to charge?
>
> Because we need a PPS that is < 10nS from the true start of second for
> our application? 1uS is really really
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Karl Denninger writes:
: Why spend twice what Mr. Schwartz seems to want to charge?
Because we need a PPS that is < 10nS from the true start of second for
our application? 1uS is really really bad for the timing geeks in the
audience.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: se
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>Why spend twice what Mr. Schwartz seems to want to charge?
>
>For the Motorola name? Sorry, the Batwing Menace to employee's rights was
>long ago placed on my "do not buy, do not recommend, actively boycott" list.
Well, suit your own poli
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 02:33:35PM -0700, Warner Losh wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Karl Denninger writes:
> : That's EXPENSIVE.
>
> Worth every penny. We've seen sub-micro second syncronization with
> our unit on good hardware, and 1-2us on the 486 based hardware.
>
> : Common handhe
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Karl Denninger writes:
: That's EXPENSIVE.
Worth every penny. We've seen sub-micro second syncronization with
our unit on good hardware, and 1-2us on the 486 based hardware.
: Common handheld GPS units with NEMA outputs on them are well under $200
: these days!
N
: >Still no feature freeze for 4.0 BTW?
:
: Feature freeze is in effect I think, but minor upgrades and bugfixes are
: not only allowed, they're mandatory :-)
Jordan told me that the feature freeze was put off until Jan 15.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscri
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Poul-Henning Kamp writes:
: I will (as always) recommend the Motorola Oncore UT+. If you buy it
We've also had excellent luck with the OEM version of the Oncore that
we embed in our products.
Warner
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscrib
> That sucks severely - NONE of the common units have the PPS output?!
>
> Barf. Oh well.
Many of them do, but it's still not meant for precision timekeeping and the
exact relationship between its PPS pulse edges and UTC's second boundaries
may not be precisely specified. It's not a goo
That sucks severely - NONE of the common units have the PPS output?!
Barf. Oh well.
--
--
Karl Denninger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Web: http://childrens-justice.org
Isn't it time we started putting KIDS first? See the above URL for
a plan to do exactly that!
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 05:42:24PM +0
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 04:55:44PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>
>> >BTW, speaking of which, does anyone know of a reasonably-cheap GPS receiver
>> >that (1) has an external-able antenna that will work with somewhere between
>> >50 and
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 04:55:44PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>
> >BTW, speaking of which, does anyone know of a reasonably-cheap GPS receiver
> >that (1) has an external-able antenna that will work with somewhere between
> >50 and 100 feet of lead, and (2) has the appropriate pps outputs an
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ollivier Robert writes:
>According to Poul-Henning Kamp:
>> I'm sure Ollivier will upgrade us every so often now :-)
>
>'98i' looks like a nice release candidate and will probably become 4.1.0
>soon. I'll update us to that level of course.
>
>Still no feature freeze
According to Poul-Henning Kamp:
> I'm sure Ollivier will upgrade us every so often now :-)
'98i' looks like a nice release candidate and will probably become 4.1.0
soon. I'll update us to that level of course.
Still no feature freeze for 4.0 BTW?
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Ser
>BTW, speaking of which, does anyone know of a reasonably-cheap GPS receiver
>that (1) has an external-able antenna that will work with somewhere between
>50 and 100 feet of lead, and (2) has the appropriate pps outputs and such
>so it can be used for this?
I will (as always) recommend the Motor
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 12:22:38PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>
> >> >Well... that won't help the 20 or so boxes here doing this all the
> >> >time:
> >> >Jan 1 11:26:46 gndrsh xntpd[133]: time reset (step) -0.217546 s
> >> >Jan 1 11
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 12:20:35PM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>
> >> >> Anyway, ntpd4 is in CURRENT...
> >> >
> >> >Now it is.
> >> >
> >> >And it works correctly too.
> >>
> >> In general yes, but not if you use the hardpps() with
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>> >Well... that won't help the 20 or so boxes here doing this all the
>> >time:
>> >Jan 1 11:26:46 gndrsh xntpd[133]: time reset (step) -0.217546 s
>> >Jan 1 11:32:06 gndrsh xntpd[133]: time reset (step) 0.207523 s
>>
>> (-0.217546 -
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>> >> Anyway, ntpd4 is in CURRENT...
>> >
>> >Now it is.
>> >
>> >And it works correctly too.
>>
>> In general yes, but not if you use the hardpps() with a refclock,
>> it works better after I fixed a couple of almost-mutually-canceling
>>
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 01:41:08AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rodney W. Grimes" writes
> :
>
> >Does it help in the 3.4-stable version to set the second value in ntpdrift
> >to 1?
>
> Yes, although I have never checked all the boundary conditions
> to make
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 01:31:25AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>
> >Yes, and my driftfile had that parameter in there. Uhm, Poul, remember I've
> >been at this for just a LITTLE while. Xntpd is something I had deployed
> >back in my *
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rodney W. Grimes" writes
> :
>
> >Does it help in the 3.4-stable version to set the second value in ntpdrift
> >to 1?
>
> Yes, although I have never checked all the boundary conditions
> to make sure the kernel-pll is stable over the entire envelope.
>
> I'm d
According to Poul-Henning Kamp:
> Hm, I actually thought I managed to get somebody to solve that somehow,
> maybe I didn't quite succeed :-)
I tried to get that patch in but Harlan didn't liked it...
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
FreeBSD keltia.freenix
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Rodney W. Grimes" writes
:
>Does it help in the 3.4-stable version to set the second value in ntpdrift
>to 1?
Yes, although I have never checked all the boundary conditions
to make sure the kernel-pll is stable over the entire envelope.
I'm doing that for the NT
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>Yes, and my driftfile had that parameter in there. Uhm, Poul, remember I've
>been at this for just a LITTLE while. Xntpd is something I had deployed
>back in my *Sun* days (back when FreeBSD was, well, non-existent)
Karl, remember who was
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
> >On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 11:11:51AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
> >>
> >> >This is not a port, its part of the RELEASE!
> >> >
> >> >Its several YEARS old, and doesn't work r
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>> >options "P1003_1B"
>> >options "_KPOSIX_PRIORITY_SCHEDULING"
>> >options "_KPOSIX_VERSION=199309L"
>> >
>> >Current versions of ntpd use these features if they're available. I
>> >think "_KPOSIX_VERSION=199309L"
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 01:15:13AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
> >On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 11:11:51AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> >> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
> >>
> >> >This is not a port, its part of
On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 01:17:15AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Polstra writes:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Karl Denninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> It looks like ntpd (the new one) works correctly; I grabbed the latest
> >> from the
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Polstra writes:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Karl Denninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> It looks like ntpd (the new one) works correctly; I grabbed the latest
>> from the official site last night and by this morning the dispersion
>> and offsets we
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 11:11:51AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>>
>> >This is not a port, its part of the RELEASE!
>> >
>> >Its several YEARS old, and doesn't work right - you get
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>This is not a port, its part of the RELEASE!
>
>Its several YEARS old, and doesn't work right - you get lots of STEP changes
>instead of what you SHOULD get, which is a slew on the system clock.
Remember to get the kernel code involved. To
According to Karl Denninger:
> This is not a port, its part of the RELEASE!
Part of 3.4-R yes. I removed xntpd (3.4e) from current a month ago and put
ntpd (4.0.98f, soon to be 4.1.0) in its place.
> What does (someone) need to do to get this changed out/updated? I can't
> send it in as a port
On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 11:11:51AM +0100, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karl Denninger writes:
>
> >This is not a port, its part of the RELEASE!
> >
> >Its several YEARS old, and doesn't work right - you get lots of STEP changes
> >instead of what you SHOULD get, whic
On Sat, Jan 01, 2000 at 09:33:31AM -0800, John Polstra wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Karl Denninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > What does (someone) need to do to get this changed out/updated? I can't
> > send it in as a port, since its part of the base package (setting
> > i
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Karl Denninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It looks like ntpd (the new one) works correctly; I grabbed the latest
> from the official site last night and by this morning the dispersion
> and offsets were stable.
BTW, you might want to add these lines (from LI
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Karl Denninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> What does (someone) need to do to get this changed out/updated? I can't
> send it in as a port, since its part of the base package (setting
> it up as a port would be pretty trivial from what I can see)
There already
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Ollivier Robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to John Polstra:
> > Current versions of ntpd use these features if they're available. I
>
> The ntpd daemon in -CURRENT doesn't use these as we cannot be sure the user
> has enabled them.
I don't understand
According to John Polstra:
> Current versions of ntpd use these features if they're available. I
The ntpd daemon in -CURRENT doesn't use these as we cannot be sure the user
has enabled them. We should make them standard IMO.
> I'm sure we'll get there eventually. Things move at a stately
> pac
I wrote:
> > Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 22:55:35 +875400
> > X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
>
> Methinks this version of Mutt may have a Y2K problem, as 875400 hours is
> roughly (very roughly) a century
My brain has a Y2K problem ... make that "one year" instead of "a
century". ;-(
--
Karl Denninger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted a message with the headers:
> Date: Fri, 31 Dec 1999 22:55:35 +875400
> X-Mailer: Mutt 0.93.2i
Methinks this version of Mutt may have a Y2K problem, as 875400 hours is
roughly (very roughly) a century
--
Darryl Okahata
[EMAIL PROTEC
On Wednesday, 29 December 1999 at 6:55:35 +2354, Karl Denninger wrote:
> This is not a port, its part of the RELEASE!
Well, yes, 3.4. But not -CURRENT.
> Its several YEARS old, and doesn't work right - you get lots of STEP
> changes instead of what you SHOULD get, which is a slew on the
> syst
67 matches
Mail list logo
