Time Problem in 5.0

[Bill Moran]

Shantanu Mahajan wrote:
> +++ Bill Moran [28-04-03 09:40 -0400]:
> | On Monday 28 April 2003 05:07 am, Shantanu Mahajan wrote:
> | > +++ Shantanu Mahajan [freebsd] [25-04-03 01:56 +0530]:
> | > | 	Hi!
> | > | 	I am useing 5.0R.
> | > |
> | > | 	> date;sleep 1;date
> | > |
> | > | 	Fri Apr 25 01:53:44 IST 2003
> | > | 	Fri Apr 25 01:53:46 IST 2003
> | > |
> | > |
> | > | 	I am not able to figure out the problem. any
> | > | 	comments?
> | >
> | > 	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?
> 	using stopwatch, I get 5s delay with sleep 5. But
> 	date command shows me 10s delay

At least you've deterimined that it's the system's timekeeping
and not the sleep command.
There were a few FAQs and other information about how to get
the timekeeping better in 5.  Search around on the FreeBSD site
some and see if you can find something that works.

-- 
Bill Moran
Potential Technologies
http://www.potentialtech.com