Current-Users archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]

Re: progress(1) a bit drunk?

On Sun, Jul 20, 2008 at 08:50:38PM +0200, Martin S. Weber wrote:
 > > > (...)
 > > > To me it seems as if the reference to start-time has been
 > > > lost. Instead of the data RATE, all data read until now are
 > > > displayed as rate.
 > > 
 > > Wading through the code, I don't see any obvious way for this to
 > > happen. Are your timecounters working properly?
 > How do I test that? (and I'm usually losing time as I'm on a SMP
 > system. As nptd used to make the machine thrash at times I'm adjusting
 > the time regularly with ntpdate. Maybe that's the cause? But ntp
 > shouldn't cause such things, should it??)

Well, if the system clock is running anything like normally the
problem isn't that the system clock isn't running.

If the time jumps backward it will confuse progressbar.c, but to get
the results you were seeing with the rate it'd need to have jumped
back to before the transfer started. (Plus, if you're losing time
that's probably not it.)

If you can reproduce this easily the best approach might be to load
debug printfs into progressbar.c... e.g. on line 244 or so print what
"bytes" and "elapsed" are. The most likely explanation of what you're
seeing is that "elapsed" is crap, but I don't see how that's possible
unless gettimeofday() is returning bad stuff.

   - David A. Holland /

Home | Main Index | Thread Index | Old Index