From owner-cvs-src@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Oct 21 17:11:55 2005 Return-Path: X-Original-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Delivered-To: cvs-src@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C979616A41F for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:11:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from oppermann@networx.ch) Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (c00l3r.networx.ch [62.48.2.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DAEC43D4C for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:11:54 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from oppermann@networx.ch) Received: (qmail 19575 invoked from network); 21 Oct 2005 17:17:09 -0000 Received: from c00l3r.networx.ch (HELO networx.ch) ([62.48.2.2]) (envelope-sender ) by c00l3r.networx.ch (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for ; 21 Oct 2005 17:17:09 -0000 Message-ID: <4359216B.68A42960@networx.ch> Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:12:11 +0200 From: Andre Oppermann X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.8 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Marcel Moolenaar References: <30805.1129910750@critter.freebsd.dk> <0D10B55A-A82D-433F-81CA-A5A02B36DA75@xcllnt.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: src-committers@FreeBSD.org, Andre Oppermann , Bruce Evans , cvs-src@FreeBSD.org, cvs-all@FreeBSD.org, Poul-Henning Kamp Subject: Re: Timekeeping [Was: Re: cvs commit: src/usr.bin/vmstat vmstat.c src/usr.bin/w w.c] X-BeenThere: cvs-src@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: CVS commit messages for the src tree List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 17:11:56 -0000 Marcel Moolenaar wrote: > > On Oct 21, 2005, at 9:05 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > > In message <20051022011020.T5554@delplex.bde.org>, Bruce Evans writes: > > > > > > > >> How do you resync laptops after suspending them for long enough for > >> the clock to drift? Use ntpd and let it step, or use ntpd -x and let > >> it take hours to resync? The right thing to do is step the clocks to > >> the current time immediately so that they are correct while the > >> system > >> is actually being used. > >> > > > > Ahh, and now we get into interesting territory: What _is_ the > > definition of uptime for a laptop which has been suspended ? > > I don't think the definition has to change, but I don't know what > the *exact* definition of uptime is. Wikipedia says this: > > "Uptime is a measure of the time a computer system has been up and > running. It came into use to describe the opposite of downtime, > times when a system was non-operational." > > Given this, suspend is downtime and the uptime is therefore defined > as the amount of time since resume. > > Doesn't seem unreasonable to me. > > > Again, if you have been sitting in DDB, what exactly is the definition > > of "uptime" ? > > Since the kernel is non-operational while in DDB, uptime is to > reset when leaving DDB. Again, according to the Wikipedia definition > of uptime. I'm having more problems finding this reasonable, but > it's not unacceptable. > > The question therefore is: which definition of uptime do we try to > implement? The question is "up and running" since when? Since the last interruption (suspend or ddb) or since the last initialization of the kernel (boot or reboot)? IMO the latter minus the former in SI seconds. -- Andre