On Monday, 14 July 2003 at 19:16:04 -0400, stan wrote:
> ;m struggling with getting the hardware clock (BIOS clock) equal to the
> kernels time.
>
> On my Linux boxes a utility called hwclock is run on the way down to
> synchronize the 2.
>
> The problem I'm running into is that if the time on the
+-- stan [freebsd] [14-07-03 19:16 -0400]:
| ;m struggling with getting the hardware clock (BIOS clock) equal to the
| kernels time.
|
| On my Linux boxes a utility called hwclock is run on the way down to
| synchronize the 2.
|
| The problem I'm running into is that if the time on the system get
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 02:55:20PM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> stan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > 1. Set the hardware clock to some truly strange time (for testing
> > software).
> >
> > 2. Reboot.
> >
> >a. time is set by the BIOS to the wrong time
> >b. ntpdate corrects this (fo
stan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 1. Set the hardware clock to some truly strange time (for testing
> software).
>
> 2. Reboot.
>
>a. time is set by the BIOS to the wrong time
>b. ntpdate corrects this (for the kernel).
>c. ntp keeps the time acurate (for this run session).
>
> 3.
On Tue, Jul 15, 2003 at 08:32:23AM -0400, Lowell Gilbert wrote:
> stan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > ;m struggling with getting the hardware clock (BIOS clock) equal to the
> > kernels time.
> >
> > On my Linux boxes a utility called hwclock is run on the way down to
> > synchronize the 2.
>
stan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> ;m struggling with getting the hardware clock (BIOS clock) equal to the
> kernels time.
>
> On my Linux boxes a utility called hwclock is run on the way down to
> synchronize the 2.
>
> The problem I'm running into is that if the time on the system gets to far
On Monday 14 July 2003 08:11 pm, W. D. wrote:
> At 19:24 7/14/2003, David Kelly, wrote:
> >Another thing we saw with Soekris and FreeBSD 4.x was that FreeBSD
> > wrote Sunday as 0 but would accept 0 or 7 on read, Soekris clock
> > hardware was happy with 0, but BIOS demanded 7 else it assumed the
>
At 19:24 7/14/2003, David Kelly, wrote:
>Another thing we saw with Soekris and FreeBSD 4.x was that FreeBSD wrote
>Sunday as 0 but would accept 0 or 7 on read, Soekris clock hardware was
>happy with 0, but BIOS demanded 7 else it assumed the clock was corrupt
>and reset its time to Jan 1, 1980.
On Monday 14 July 2003 06:16 pm, stan wrote:
> ;m struggling with getting the hardware clock (BIOS clock) equal to
> the kernels time.
>
> On my Linux boxes a utility called hwclock is run on the way down to
> synchronize the 2.
>
> The problem I'm running into is that if the time on the system get
On Mon, Jul 14, 2003 at 04:20:30PM -0700, Marvin J. Kosmal wrote:
> Sound like the battery is bad..
>
> I would suggest changing the battery.
>
That's not it.
If I go intot the BIOS and reset the time to something close, all is well.
besides, if it was a battery problem, even when the time w
;m struggling with getting the hardware clock (BIOS clock) equal to the
kernels time.
On my Linux boxes a utility called hwclock is run on the way down to
synchronize the 2.
The problem I'm running into is that if the time on the system gets to far
out of date for ntpd to bring it into synch, the
11 matches
Mail list logo
