Date: Thu, 16 Dec 1999 16:10:40 -0800 From: Mike Smith <msmith@freebsd.org> To: Tom Bartol <bartol@salk.edu> Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Serious server-side NFS problem Message-ID: <199912170010.QAA02326@mass.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 16 Dec 1999 12:37:02 PST." <Pine.BSF.4.10.9912161235060.36287-100000@eccles.salk.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > On Thu, 16 Dec 1999, Warner Losh wrote: > > > In message <16722.945365564@critter.freebsd.dk> Poul-Henning Kamp writes: > > : If people do a "settimeofday" we change the boot time since the > > : amount of time we've been up *IS* known for sure, whereas the boottime > > : is only an estimate. > > > > There is one problem with this. The amount of uptime isn't the same > > as the amount of time since the machine booted. How can this happen? > > When a laptop suspends, it doesn't update the update while it is > > asleep, nor does it update the uptime by the amount of time that has > > been slept. IS this a bug in the apm code? > > IIRC it does update uptime properly after a suspend in 2.2.8 but does not > do so in 3.X and -current on my ThinkPad 770. Not updating uptime to account for time slept is the "correct" behaviour given the way the kernel currently thinks about things, where "correct" is defined as "most survivable". -- \\ Give a man a fish, and you feed him for a day. \\ Mike Smith \\ Tell him he should learn how to fish himself, \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ and he'll hate you for a lifetime. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199912170010.QAA02326>