From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Sep 13 00:54:08 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DBB58106566C for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:54:08 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from bf1783@googlemail.com) Received: from mail-ww0-f50.google.com (mail-ww0-f50.google.com [74.125.82.50]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70FDE8FC08 for ; Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:54:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwe3 with SMTP id 3so17378wwe.31 for ; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:54:07 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:reply-to:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=mtDrKjpX/pkOy18rRhn2VDyhqKCoT96RUb9CzdmAUFU=; b=VyCDdpjcCrz7STD8nFTg+OtmIIz06Q5FAuAGcwAHNOwTL9FTJoPMuFDSIGwV90bMJP CVy2ErGIjzfQR5qaBflCP/cJJhnbvmnmpA7CRDg3ithBUePkA/1xjfpFqEY1idYcqQii 81WCdk/75qcYg+65M9W0gk6nZkvyN9PVtclk0= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.227.11.15 with SMTP id r15mr316301wbr.107.1315875247448; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.180.80.234 with HTTP; Mon, 12 Sep 2011 17:54:07 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 12 Sep 2011 20:54:07 -0400 Message-ID: From: "b. f." To: Brett Glass , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: Subject: Re: Negative ping times with FreeBSD 8.1-RELEASE on older Celeron system X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list Reply-To: bf1783@gmail.com List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 00:54:08 -0000 > I just put FreeBSD 8.1 up on an old (but good) 500 MHz Celeron with > half a gig of RAM. Interfaces are classic xl (3Com) and dc (DEC > tulip). Works quite nicely except for one quirk: ping times that > ought to be positive (no more than 200 ms worst case) are coming > out negative! Can't figure out what might be causing this. dmesg > output is as follows: If you are just upgrading now, why not use 9 BETA? I think that your older machine will be much happier -- the new timer code in 9 has a bunch of bugfixes, allows for a wider choice of alternative timers, in case some are broken, and places lighter loads on the system, by allowing some (formerly periodic) timer use to be deferred. And then there is the host of other improvements... b.