From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:39:05 +0200
From: John Soros <sorosj@gmail.com>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <20080825223905.15ba400c@dazone>
In-Reply-To: <9c0fd5d9e2824e819ff59e94c3dd7ddd@proxima.alt.za>
References: <20080825204841.3806af18@dazone>
	<9c0fd5d9e2824e819ff59e94c3dd7ddd@proxima.alt.za>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] lguest on 2.6.25
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 07946f36-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

hello,

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 20:54:53 +0200
lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:

> > Well, i don't think I am starting two timesync, ps a shows only one:
>
> If Xen is anything to go by, time keeping is a problem in
> virtualisation.  And Erik is misguiding you :-)
>
> Thing is, if timesync is wresting with the clock as it seems to do if
> two instances are running, it does consume a lot of cpu time,
> according to experiences reported on this list.  But it's possible
> that timesync is wrestling with the virtual executive rather than with
> another instance of itself.
>
> Would it hurt you to run without timesync?

will try, thanks :-)

>
> ++L
>
>
John