On Sat, 12 Apr 2008, Serge Bets wrote:
> The idea was about the RTC_SET flag (bit #7 of register B). It suspends
> clock updates, without any effect on the oscillator nor PIE. I was
> hoping it would delay next updates by as long as it was asserted. But
> no: the next update is either skipped, or
Ryan Malayter wrote:
> On Apr 12, 7:23 pm, Steve Kostecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> The answer is security.
>> It also denies the users of a time server potentially valuable
>> information about that server's time sources.
>>
>> You may find it acceptable to use a block box time source with
>>
David Woolley wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I have ntpd installed (ntpq [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jun 4 15:13:06 UTC 2007
>
> That is not a standard version number. Who allocated the "@1.1570-o"
> part of the version number? You may be better off getting support from
> them.
>
We do.
>>>What is good enough?
>
>>Something I can easily measure.
>
>Well, apparently you can measure it-- "You also get jitter from the OS..."
>suggests that you measured something. But that is not good enough.
I can easily see that it's much worse than I expect.
What I haven't been able to get is cl
On Apr 9, 4:40 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Andy) wrote:
>
> Two things:
> (1) Try running with time stepping enabled on that system (i.e. don't
> use the '-x' flag) to see how well the system keeps time. What kind of
> offset do you have after 1 or 2 hours of operation?
> (2) Check your drift value
