Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 12 Feb 2010 13:58:19 -0600
From:      "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@over-yonder.net>
To:        Jeremy Chadwick <freebsd@jdc.parodius.com>
Cc:        Torfinn Ingolfsen <torfinn.ingolfsen@broadpark.no>, freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ntpd struggling to keep up - how to fix?
Message-ID:  <20100212195819.GI64395@over-yonder.net>
In-Reply-To: <20100212194604.GA73961@icarus.home.lan>
References:  <20100211190652.6a66c618.torfinn.ingolfsen@broadpark.no> <20100211192515.GB13854@icarus.home.lan> <20100212132947.eb2af3d0.torfinn.ingolfsen@broadpark.no> <20100212131117.GA51905@icarus.home.lan> <20100212174452.2140cd72.torfinn.ingolfsen@broadpark.no> <20100212194604.GA73961@icarus.home.lan>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:46:04AM -0800 I heard the voice of
Jeremy Chadwick, and lo! it spake thus:
> 
> Technical footnote: I wish I understood 1) the difference between
> ACPI-safe and ACPI-fast,

AIUI, they're nearly the same thing, and it has to do with some
testing to determine how it can be reliably accessed.  I've had
systems that would sometimes come up with -fast, and other times -safe
(I think one varied depending on cold vs. warm boot for instance).


> and 2) how the system or OS "ranks" the timecounters (the higher the
> value in parenthesis, supposedly the more accurate/preferred it is).

That's easier; TTBOMK, they're hardcoded in the source based on
developer SWAG about their relative expenses and reliabilities and
precisions.


-- 
Matthew Fuller     (MF4839)   |  fullermd@over-yonder.net
Systems/Network Administrator |  http://www.over-yonder.net/~fullermd/
           On the Internet, nobody can hear you scream.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20100212195819.GI64395>