On Thu, 2006-09-21 at 12:24 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 20 Sep 2006, john stultz wrote:
>
> > No objections here, but I wanted to put forth some caution as I've seen
> > some odd NTP behavior with the full NTP patchset on my laptop (either it
> > does not converge or it just converges *much* more slowly then without).
> > Unfortunately I've not been able to collect solid enough data to analyze
> > the issue (really, each run should go for atleast a full day and always
> > run on the same network).
>
> grumble...
> As I said before it's expected that the initial covergence is slower and I
> need the data over multiple days to really say something about it.
> There has been really a lot of time for doing this...
Andrew,
With apologies to Roman, I'm withdrawing my hesitation on these patches.
I was able to run tests for two days each w/ and w/o the patch I had
concerns about. And indeed, it seems if the drift file is reset, the
initial convergence is much slower (and this is really what worried me).
However once it converges it seems to keep sync as well as the current
code.
thanks
-john
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
