On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:56 AM, Jeff <jlar310@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 1:35 PM, Akemi Yagi <amyagi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Jeff <jlar310@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Our experience with HZ=100 in 4.6 kernels was nearly perfect time > sync, at least to within a second over one week. Not so with > divider=10. I will grab the -78 SRPM and give it a spin. That is very interesting. This is the first time I've heard about the difference between the two with regard to timekeeping problems. Please keep us informed of your testing. Akemi
