>
> > In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Kevin Day writes:
> >
> > >Ack, I was using this very same thing for several devices in an isolated
> > >peer-to-peer network to decide who the 'master' was. (Whoever had been up
> > >longest knew more about the state of the network) Having this change could
> > >cause weirdness for me too... I assumed (without checking *thwap*) that
> > >boottime was a constant.
> > >
> > >Perhaps a 'real_boottime' or 'unadjusted_boottime' that gets copied after
> > >'boottime' gets initialized so that others can use it, not just NFS? :)
> >
> > no, I think that is a bad idea. In your case you want to use the
> > "uptime" which *is* a measure of how long the system has been
> > running.
>
> Uptime is also a constantly changing number. Forgive me for my
> ignorance, but why does bootime constantly change? I would have thought
> it would be a constant? I've got software that also uses this to
> determine when a new copy of it exists (although I do keep a local cache
> of the value in case my software crashes, since it can recover from a
> crash, but not a reboot).
>
> I would think that boottime would be constant, since you didn't keep
> booting at a different time...
>
Yeah, uptime is moving which makes it difficult for me too. When new
machines enter the network, they need to announce a number which is used to
decice who will become the master if the current master disappears. I could
just announce currenttime-uptime, but that's got a slightly different
meaning that I'll have to consider.
Anyway, enough of my proprietary mess, but... I do see a few uses for a
non-moving boottime, but won't argue here or now. :) This behaviour is
documented in time(9) though, so I really can't complain. :)
Kevin
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
