David Woolley wrote:
> E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists wrote:
>
>>
>> I can perhaps see idling the connection to keep it open when the
>> poll rate is at ~ 1 minute, however what about when the poll
>> rate decreases to ~ 17 minutes? (or less often if so configured)
Alan wrote:
> Thanks for the reply,
>
> I've checked and I have /usepmtimer in boot.ini and wclkres -p reports
> Performance Counter Frequency: 3.580
So your system does indeed use the PM timer to implement the QPC function.
> I also have Cool N Quiet turned off in BIOS.
AFAIK this should only
Alan wrote:
> Here's what I see from clockres without the -M option on
>
> Max 15.625 ms
> Minimum 1.000 ms
> Current 15.625 ms
This seems to indicate the internal timer ticks at 15.625 ms interval by
default, but if the MM timer is set to highest resolution the timer tick
changes to 1 ms.
Howev
David J Taylor wrote:
> "Alan" wrote in message
> news:z9i5n.58805$q36.5...@newsfe19.ams2...
>> Would like to get to the bottom of this as well. Using 4.4.6-o with -M ,
>> I get "Frequency error 3030 PPM exceeds tolerance 500 PPM". Considering
>> that without =M the frequency modification is only
I doubt the problem may be due to a different time sync program running
since the problem occurs if and only if the MM timer tick rate is
changed.
Martin
Agreed, Martin. Just clutching at straws with all the things I have seen
which can cause problems on Windows. Thanks also for your notes
I'll try a few experiments. Motherboard is ASRock ALiveNF6p-VSTA, a
fairly mainstream manufacturer board with NVIDIA Chipset and onboard
graphics. That or very similar architecture boards are quite widely in use.
I do have a copy of OpenSolaris I stuck on another partition to play
with some ti
David J Taylor wrote:
> Is:
>
> Performance Counter Frequency: 3.580
>
> a guarantee that the TSC isn't being used?
AFAIK if the TSC is used then the clock frequency reported for QPC matches
the CPU's clock full clock frequency, and IIRC then according to some MS
docs the reported frequency do
On Thu, Jan 21, 2010 at 11:01 UTC, Martin Burnicki wrote:
> Dave Hart, isn't there a way to force disabling time interpolation with your
> binaries even if the system time increments in 15.625 ms steps?
No, the opposite is available (forcing its use on), but the only way
to disable interpolation i
Alan wrote:
> I'll try a few experiments. Motherboard is ASRock ALiveNF6p-VSTA, a
> fairly mainstream manufacturer board with NVIDIA Chipset and onboard
> graphics. That or very similar architecture boards are quite widely in
> use.
>
> I do have a copy of OpenSolaris I stuck on another partition
On Jan 21, 4:43 am, Martin Burnicki
wrote:
> AFAIK this should only affect the TSCs, so the setting should not matter at
> all if the PM timer is used.
Another detail on RDTSC: newer cores, such as Intel's Core2 and AMD's
Phenom, return a constant-rate readout by RDTSC. In actuality, the
counter
"Martin Burnicki" wrote in message
news:mp2m27-dp3@gateway.py.meinberg.de...
[]
AFAIK if the TSC is used then the clock frequency reported for QPC
matches
the CPU's clock full clock frequency, and IIRC then according to some MS
docs the reported frequency does not even change when the CPU'
On Jan 21, 9:51 am, "David J Taylor" wrote:
>
> Thanks, Martin. I'm beginning to wish I'd never asked, as I have Windows
> XP SP3 here and yet the performance counter is running at 2.4GHz (Intel
> E6600 dual-core). Or does the PM_Timer only apply to AMD systems?
Windows chooses the most precise
Evandro Menezes wrote:
> On Jan 21, 4:43 am, Martin Burnicki
> wrote:
>> AFAIK this should only affect the TSCs, so the setting should not matter
>> at all if the PM timer is used.
>
> Another detail on RDTSC: newer cores, such as Intel's Core2 and AMD's
> Phenom, return a constant-rate readout b
unruh wrote:
>
> A problem with the ntpd protocol.
Not so much the protocol as with the selection algorithm. But point
taken.
Brian Utterback
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
unruh wrote:
> But the timestamps are not lies. they are far closer to the real time
> than is that serverd by ntpd, and it is time that ntp serves, not slew
> rate. ntpd wanders off into the wilderness ( I have seen it go off by
> 20ms, when its steady state error is 2 usec) with its slewing that
David Woolley wrote:
> The clock frequency is based on the combined offset, so, unless you are
> using prefer flags, it should not jump when the system peer changes.
Not necessarily. It depends on the offsets, dispersions and root
dispersions. And the combining algorithm uses a weighting so one o
Martin Burnicki wrote:
>> Is that really correct as even I can tell 0.977 is less than the
>> "minimun" 1.000 ms" in the previous line?
>
> I think 1 ms is just the nominal value and 0.977 is due to rounding errors
> or an inexact measurement interval.
I thought the timer interval was 1/1024 Hz?
Rob wrote:
> Martin Burnicki wrote:
>>> Is that really correct as even I can tell 0.977 is less than the
>>> "minimun" 1.000 ms" in the previous line?
>>
>> I think 1 ms is just the nominal value and 0.977 is due to rounding errors
>> or an inexact measurement interval.
>
> I thought the timer in
Windows chooses the most precise, invariant frequency source available
in the system. As I said before, Intel's Core2 processors have a TSC
that doesn't vary with the CPU clock (though its precision is not as
good as it seems). Only newer AMD processors sport the same feature
and even then it mu
Rob wrote:
It would be very unwise to use TCP for something like NTP.
Information sent by an application via a TCP socket will be re-sent by
Agreed, but the thread had gone off topic.
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.
Martin Burnicki wrote:
Alan wrote:
However when I turn -M on the bottom line changes to Current 0.977 ms
Is that really correct as even I can tell 0.977 is less than the
"minimun" 1.000 ms" in the previous line?
I think 1 ms is just the nominal value and 0.977 is due to rounding errors
or an
On 2010-01-21, Brian Utterback wrote:
> unruh wrote:
>> But the timestamps are not lies. they are far closer to the real time
>> than is that serverd by ntpd, and it is time that ntp serves, not slew
>> rate. ntpd wanders off into the wilderness ( I have seen it go off by
>> 20ms, when its steady
Jonathan,
Two questions
Whats the easiest way to sync the time?
What are you doing outside of a OS2 group?? :)
Rich W.
Jonathan de Boyne Pollard wrote:
Nonsense. There are plenty of people in the world who have achieved
synchronization via other arrangements of (S)NTP clients and servers.
I fell in love with the net and all the compuiter teahcnology in the very early
years and have loved it ever since, I have an IT Degree and Communications
degree and will be working on my doctorate for the next five years, in bwetween
I design websites, databases, Multimedia Produxction or anyth
24 matches
Mail list logo
