Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 03 Mar 2009 21:19:46 +0100 | From | Jesper Krogh <> | Subject | Re: Linux 2.6.29-rc6 |
| |
john stultz wrote: > On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 07:04 +0100, Jesper Krogh wrote: >> john stultz wrote: >>> On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 10:53 +0100, Jesper Krogh wrote: >>>> john stultz wrote: >>>>> Ok, so it seems ntp hasn't really had a chance to settle down, its only >>>>> made a 10ppm adjustment so far. NTPd will stop corrections at ~ >>>>> +/-500ppm, so you're not at that bound yet, where things would be really >>>>> broken. >>>>> >>>>> If the affected kernel isn't resetting in the logs anymore, I'd be >>>>> interested in what the new ppm value is. >>>> After 20 hours.. its still resetting. >>>> Mar 2 10:43:24 quad12 ntpd[4416]: synchronized to 10.194.133.12, stratum 4 >>>> Mar 2 10:50:37 quad12 ntpd[4416]: time reset -1.103654 s >>> So what's the "ntpdc -c kerninfo" output now? >> Mar 3 06:41:10 quad12 ntpd[4416]: time reset -0.813957 s >> Mar 3 06:45:20 quad12 ntpd[4416]: synchronized to LOCAL(0), stratum 13 >> Mar 3 06:45:36 quad12 ntpd[4416]: synchronized to 10.194.133.12, stratum 4 >> Mar 3 06:51:57 quad12 ntpd[4416]: synchronized to 10.194.133.13, stratum 4 >> Mar 3 07:00:29 quad12 ntpd[4416]: time reset -0.783390 s >> jk@quad12:~$ ntpdc -c kerninfo >> pll offset: 0 s >> pll frequency: -28.691 ppm > > > This is baffling. You've only gone from -34.754ppm to -28.691ppm in over > a day? And you're still not syncing? If the calibration was so bad that > NTP couldn't sync, I'd expect the freq value to hit +/-500ppm before it > gave up. This just doesn't follow my expectations.
It's resetting.. without deep knowledge about ntp, doesnt that mean "start over again"? I believe it hits +/-500ppm
> Could you provide: > /usr/sbin/ntpdc -c version
$ ntpdc -c version ntpdc 4.2.4p4@1.1520-o Tue Jan 6 15:51:00 UTC 2009 (1)
> Do you see the same behavior if you drop all but one server (including > the local clock: 127.127.1.0)? > > You might also add "minpoll 4 maxpoll 4" to the server line to speed up > testing.
Will try those option while debugging.
> Actually, if you could, I'd be interested if you could send your > ntp.conf
http://krogh.cc/~jesper/ntp.conf
But this seems to be a "regression". Since 2.6.27.19 doesn't misbehave. Same NTP, same configuration, same hardware. only change is the kernel version. Or am I missing some parameter here?
Would it make sense to try to bisect it?
Jesper
-- Jesper
| |