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
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
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:
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
[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.
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
[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
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
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
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
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
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
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'
Guys give it up. He's being a jerk, and yanking your chain.
The code is not going to change.
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
---
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
44 matches
Mail list logo
