[ntp:questions] Re: Is ntp really what I need?

Joseph Gwinn JoeGwinn at comcast.net
Tue Feb 15 15:14:53 UTC 2005


In article <mailman.121.1108416257.583.questions at lists.ntp.isc.org>,
 Brad Knowles <brad at stop.mail-abuse.org> wrote:

> At 7:43 PM +0000 2005-02-14, Paul Hilton wrote:
> 
> >  I understand that kernel 2.6.x may be better in this respect, and at some
> >  point I may change my desktop system, and it MAY get better.
> 
> 	I am not at all convinced that this is true.  Please see 
> <https://ntp.isc.org/bin/view/Support/KnownOsIssues#Section_8.2.3.>.

While this isn't a solution to the immediate problem, the Linux kernel 
folk are developing a preemptive realtime kernel, and masked and/or lost 
interrupts are a key issue.  Ingo Molnar would probably be interested in 
this issue, as it's yet another reason realtime behaviour is needed, 
even in systems that are not intended for traditional realtime uses.  I 
suspect that the latest test builds of the preemptive kernel would not 
have the NTP problems discussed in the present thread.  (That said, this 
test build crashes a lot, and isn't ready for prime time.)

Search for the "[patch] Real-Time Preemption" thread on 
"http://lwn.net/" (Linux Weekly News).

Joe Gwinn

 
> >                                                                For the
> >  moment I think I'll just do an hourly ntpd -q, and stop running the
> >  daemon.
> 
> 	If you are unable or unwilling to make modifications to your 
> kernel so as to allow it to keep better time (and lose fewer timer 
> interrupts), there may not be any good options.



More information about the questions mailing list