From owner-freebsd-current Tue Jan 30 17:14:37 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id RAA27728 for current-outgoing; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 17:14:37 -0800 (PST) Received: from fw.ast.com (fw.ast.com [165.164.6.25]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id RAA27719 for ; Tue, 30 Jan 1996 17:14:27 -0800 (PST) Received: from nemesis by fw.ast.com with uucp (Smail3.1.29.1 #2) id m0thR2v-000858C; Tue, 30 Jan 96 19:09 CST Received: by nemesis.lonestar.org (Smail3.1.27.1 #20) id m0thQws-000C6IC; Tue, 30 Jan 96 19:02 WET Message-Id: Date: Tue, 30 Jan 96 19:02 WET To: davidg@Root.COM, freebsd-current@freebsd.org From: uhclem@nemesis.lonestar.org (Frank Durda IV) Sent: Tue Jan 30 1996, 19:02:57 CST Subject: Re: any ideas about this crash? Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk [6]This Pentium internal timer is USELESS as a [6]TOD timepiece! Stop using it this way! It is only good for relative [6]measurements within the processors realm. [7]"USELESS" might be a little strong - it does have the merit of being a [7]very fast, "accurate", and easy way to do time measurements. That's why I said what I said above. For measurements of relative times within the processor, its ok. The moment you leave that context and try to use it to compare between different brands of machines or hold it against an external clock standard, it is useless. Frank Durda IV |"Your choice: FreeBSD or or uhclem%nemesis@rwsystr.nkn.net | Bob-Pro. See, that wasn't so ^------(this is the fastest route)| tough." (C) July 1995, FDIV or ...letni!rwsys!nemesis!uhclem |