Subject: Re: options HZ
To: Jonathan Stone <jonathan@DSG.Stanford.EDU>
From: Simon Burge <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 03/11/1996 23:10:07
On Sun, 10 Mar 1996 13:59:45 -0800 email@example.com wrote:
> I use 256. There's a tradeoff between clock accuracy and cycles
> burnt in the clock handler. 64HZ works. 1024 Hz results in
> a noticeable fraction of late/lost interrupts on a 5k/240.
> Between those limits, it's up to you...
I'm using 1024 HZ at the moment, and I'm seeing some wild time
variations. With both an xntpd using the new ntp_* syscall interface,
and an old xntpd that uses adjtime, I get a 'previous time adjustment
didn't complete' message after every 'time reset' message. I'm not
sure if the PLL has gotten itself in a mess or what's happening. I'm
going to try 256 HZ this week to see if the problem disappears...