Hi all I also have a Soekris 5501 70. I put debian on it. No problem so far, however the clock runs too fast: about 1 hour per day.
Has anyone a solution? Thanks, Rob Visser malk wrote: > > Hello all- > > I've been reading the list archives to find it appears some people have > reported an exessively fast hardware clock and system clock on the 5501. > > This includes mine. I've found I can use clock=pit on my fedora core 6 > install stock kernel to at least get the system clock to calm down. > > I've read about building in support for the scx200 high speed hardware > counter to have the kernel use that instead of the TSC. I plan to > use that to solve system clock issues permanently. Apparently it's > when the TSC is in use (w/ the new tickless 2.6 kernel stuff) that > the system clock side of it gets in trouble. > > But the hardware clock running too fast still persists. I've read > others who have watched it from Comm BIOS with the "time" command > to see it in action. I've used hwclock from linux to see it going > too fast when compared w/ my system clock running with the PIT > timer. > > I've also read that it seems some people have this problem and > others don't? I could be wrong, but is this true that some > boards have the fast hardware clock problem and others don't? > > Is there something that can be done to correct this? That's the > one thing I couldn't find in the archives, so I'm asking about it > here. I really want to avoid having a clock that gets ahead when > this box needs to get it's initial system clock setup from the > hardware clock at boot. It will be annoying to have ntpdate or > rdate push it backwards in time once the network is started etc. > > So -- is there a fix available even if it means modifying the > hardware? I'd be happy to send the board back for re-work > and would even consider paying for the shipping etc. as it's > simply important to me to have this fixed. I'm also willing > to have one of our techs replace a crystal or whatever if it > means changing something physical. > > Otherwise -- so far it's looking good for my planned use as a > firewall / router / no moving parts / lower power frontend > to our couple of internet connections and wireless network. > > Any info would be greatly appreciated. > > -- > Eric Malkowski > _______________________________________________ > Soekris-tech mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.soekris.com/mailman/listinfo/soekris-tech > > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/net5501-excessively-fast-%2810x%29-hardware-clock-options--tf4491391.html#a12908757 Sent from the Soekris - Technical mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Soekris-tech mailing list [email protected] http://lists.soekris.com/mailman/listinfo/soekris-tech
