Time Problem in 5.0

[Shantanu Mahajan]

+++ Bill Moran [28-04-03 09:40 -0400]:
| On Monday 28 April 2003 05:07 am, Shantanu Mahajan wrote:
| > 	Here are few more examples.
| >
| > 	> date;sleep 5;date
| >
| > 	Mon Apr 28 14:13:45 IST 2003
| > 	Mon Apr 28 14:13:55 IST 2003
| >
| > 	> date;sleep 10;date
| >
| > 	Mon Apr 28 14:14:26 IST 2003
| > 	Mon Apr 28 14:14:46 IST 2003
| >
| > 	> date;sleep 15;date
| >
| > 	Mon Apr 28 14:15:24 IST 2003
| > 	Mon Apr 28 14:15:54 IST 2003
| >
| >
| > 	Now, I started the timer simultaneously and found
| > 	out that "sleep 5" give me dalay of 5 sec. properly.
| >
| > 	Maybe there is problem with date?
| > 	Should I file a pr?
| >
| > 	(The machine used is *desktop* machine and don't
| > 	have any load)
| 
| I ran the exact same tests on my newly installed 5.0
| workstation and got the results expected (i.e. sleep 5
| actually waited 5 seconds).
| 
| Perhaps it's not sleep, but your clock on your PC
| that is the problem.  If you time the sleep command
| (with a stopwatch, for example) does it sleep for 5
| or 10 seconds?  Is the clock on your PC actually
| keeping reliable (or close) time?

	I also check this with win2k. It is working
	perfectly. What I did is "time", waited for 5s, and
	again "time" gave me difference of 5s.
| 
| -- 
| Bill Moran
| Potential Technologies
| http://www.potentialtech.com

	Regards,
	Shantanu

-- 
An age is called Dark not because the light fails to shine,
but because people refuse to see it.