From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3E7432B3.2050805@powell.name>
From: Richard Powell <richard@powell.name>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.1) Gecko/20020827
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 9fans <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: Re: [9fans] timesync is slow to set the time after boot
References: <3E72CCA8.2030605@powell.name> <0c96ecd2b95642b0199eacca2aaea7ba@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 00:15:47 -0800
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 80feb72c-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

David,

If there are problems reading the clock on the first pass, maybe we 
could just wait one second between passes instead of one minute. (Or 
even zero seconds if you think that's safe enough.).

Thanks for looking into this.
Richard



diff -c timesync.org timesync.c.tsecs0
*** timesync.c.org        Fri Mar 14 19:42:32 2003
--- timesync.c.tsecs1   Sun Mar 16 00:05:10 2003
***************
*** 344,349 ****
--- 344,350 ----
                         break;
                 case Rtc:
                         s->stime = sample(rtctime);
+                       tsecs = 1;
                         break;
                 case Utc:
                         s->stime = utcsample();
***************
*** 385,391 ****
                 diff = s->stime - s->ltime;
                 if(diff > 10*SEC || diff < -10*SEC){
                         // we're way off, just set the time
!                       secs = MinSampleSecs;
                         settime(s->stime, 0, 0, 0);
                 } else {
                         // keep a running average of the error.
--- 386,392 ----
                 diff = s->stime - s->ltime;
                 if(diff > 10*SEC || diff < -10*SEC){
                         // we're way off, just set the time
!                       tsecs = secs = MinSampleSecs;
                         settime(s->stime, 0, 0, 0);
                 } else {
                         // keep a running average of the error.



David Presotto wrote:
> I stopped ignoring the first sample.  It made some difference since the
> first sample is usually perverted a bit by the system starting up.  However,
> it really doesn't help to have a wrong time for a minute.   Thanks powell.
>