From: Phil W. <ph...@su...> - 2004-01-02 13:59:17
|
On Wed, Dec 31, 2003 at 02:26:01PM -0600, Bruce Allen wrote: > > I don't agree that the timestamps are wrong. The timestamps are correct > if: > > The machine was power-cycled at 8978 hours. The identify packet device > entry (#174) was from 301 seconds (5 minutes) after that power cycle. > > The machine was previously power cycled at 7794 hours (about 7 weeks > previously). This is because 4265553.296 seconds = 1184 hours = 7 weeks. Er, okay, that could explain it... Phil |