[9fans] lguest on 2.6.25 - Plan9

This is a discussion on [9fans] lguest on 2.6.25 - Plan9 ; > > I don't think so. Genrandom make me want to look at using the hardware > RNGs a few years ago, but then Intel killed firmware hub and the whole > idea kind of went away. > via has ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: [9fans] lguest on 2.6.25

  1. Re: [9fans] lguest on 2.6.25

    >
    > I don't think so. Genrandom make me want to look at using the hardware
    > RNGs a few years ago, but then Intel killed firmware hub and the whole
    > idea kind of went away.
    >


    via has release the padlock documentation.

    unfortunately one needs to enable floating point
    and sse to use the padlock rng.

    on reading that, i decided that software rng
    wasn't as slow or as important as i'd remembered.

    there's also the problem of ensuring that the
    hardware rng is at least as good as plan 9's.

    - erik


  2. Re: [9fans] lguest on 2.6.25

    this is weird. So, to recap, your timezone is set correctly, and yet
    you are four hours off.

    A useful thing to do is cat /dev/time and see how it changes.

    The time from lguest is simple: you read a 64-bit # which is time.
    It's just like Xen that way.

    Also, try this to test another issue:

    date && sleep 60 && date

    Two things: should take 60 seconds by the watch and the two dates
    should report 60 seconds apart.

    Do they?

    ron


  3. Re: [9fans] lguest on 2.6.25

    i think it is weird too,
    as far as i could mesure it, it took 60 seconds, here it is:
    cpu% date && sleep 60 && date
    Thu Aug 28 22:19:21 CET 2008
    Thu Aug 28 22:20:22 CET 2008
    cpu%
    My timezones are all set up to be CET (host and plan9 guest), the hardware clock is set to UTC. I am running vanilla 2.6.25 kernel, on a gentoo system.
    Thank you for helping debug this problem, is there any more info I can give to help this process?

    John

    On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:38:56 -0700
    "ron minnich" wrote:

    > this is weird. So, to recap, your timezone is set correctly, and yet
    > you are four hours off.
    >
    > A useful thing to do is cat /dev/time and see how it changes.
    >
    > The time from lguest is simple: you read a 64-bit # which is time.
    > It's just like Xen that way.
    >
    > Also, try this to test another issue:
    >
    > date && sleep 60 && date
    >
    > Two things: should take 60 seconds by the watch and the two dates
    > should report 60 seconds apart.
    >
    > Do they?
    >
    > ron
    >



  4. Re: [9fans] lguest on 2.6.25

    any chance that the rtc is being kept in local
    time and not utc?

    - erik


  5. Re: [9fans] lguest on 2.6.25

    On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:38 AM, ron minnich wrote:
    > this is weird. So, to recap, your timezone is set correctly, and yet
    > you are four hours off.
    >
    > A useful thing to do is cat /dev/time and see how it changes.
    >
    > The time from lguest is simple: you read a 64-bit # which is time.
    > It's just like Xen that way.
    >
    > Also, try this to test another issue:
    >
    > date && sleep 60 && date
    >
    > Two things: should take 60 seconds by the watch and the two dates
    > should report 60 seconds apart.
    >
    > Do they?
    >
    > ron


    I've doublechecked the timezone setting, and it appears to be correct.
    The 'date' test seems to work fine:

    # date && sleep 60 && date
    Thu Aug 28 15:52:19 CDT 2008
    Thu Aug 28 15:53:19 CDT 2008

    Within a second of one another, I ran:

    lguest: cat /dev/time
    1219956674 1219956674748050432 1219956674748050432 4294967296
    host: date +%s
    1219943774

    So lguest is 12900 seconds ahead (= 215 minutes, = 3 hrs 35 minutes).
    John, are you getting the same?

    Best,
    Alex


    --
    Alex Lee


  6. Re: [9fans] lguest on 2.6.25

    yep, i get exactly the same:
    plan9:
    % date
    Thu Aug 28 23:40:17 CET 2008
    Linux host:
    $ date
    Thu Aug 28 20:06:02 CEST 2008
    even the time difference seems to be the same. strange!

    rgds
    John

    On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:24:32 -0500
    "Alex Lee" wrote:

    > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 10:38 AM, ron minnich wrote:
    > > this is weird. So, to recap, your timezone is set correctly, and yet
    > > you are four hours off.
    > >
    > > A useful thing to do is cat /dev/time and see how it changes.
    > >
    > > The time from lguest is simple: you read a 64-bit # which is time.
    > > It's just like Xen that way.
    > >
    > > Also, try this to test another issue:
    > >
    > > date && sleep 60 && date
    > >
    > > Two things: should take 60 seconds by the watch and the two dates
    > > should report 60 seconds apart.
    > >
    > > Do they?
    > >
    > > ron

    >
    > I've doublechecked the timezone setting, and it appears to be correct.
    > The 'date' test seems to work fine:
    >
    > # date && sleep 60 && date
    > Thu Aug 28 15:52:19 CDT 2008
    > Thu Aug 28 15:53:19 CDT 2008
    >
    > Within a second of one another, I ran:
    >
    > lguest: cat /dev/time
    > 1219956674 1219956674748050432 1219956674748050432 4294967296
    > host: date +%s
    > 1219943774
    >
    > So lguest is 12900 seconds ahead (= 215 minutes, = 3 hrs 35 minutes).
    > John, are you getting the same?
    >
    > Best,
    > Alex
    >
    >



+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2