[ntp:questions] Stability problem on PowerEdge (SuSE 9.3)
Till Wimmer
news-dfn at substring.ch
Tue Feb 27 15:38:00 UTC 2007
hi steve,
Steve Kostecke wrote:
> On 2007-02-24, Till Wimmer <news-dfn at substring.ch> wrote:
>
>> Our main server is running SuSE 9.3 on AMD64. I installed the xntp
>> package from SuSE (Vers. 4.2.0a-35). Hardware: DELL Power Edge 2850
>>
>> uanme -a:
>> Linux office 2.6.11.4-21.15-smp #1 SMP Tue Nov 28 13:39:58 UTC 2006 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
>
>> /etc/ntp.conf:
>
>> server 127.127.1.0
>> fudge 127.127.1.0 stratum 13
>
> You should comment out the LocalCLK until you fix your stability
> problem. And then, you should only re-enable the LocalCLK if you
> understand why you need it.
Well i confess, i'm new to ntp problematics... i thought we need this because all other servers in the LAN are sync'ed to this
one. We need, at least, the same time on every server.
>
>> server 0.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst
>> server 1.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst
>> server 2.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst
>> server 3.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst
>
> Some people will tell you that this is a poor choice of servers (e.g.
> due to excessive delay). That may be true but it's not germane to your
> problem.
I changed them to ch.pools.... see follow ups
>
>> disable auth
>
> Disabling auth is not usually a good idea because it can allow someone
> with ntpdc to tinker with your ntpd settings remotely. BUT ... this has
> nothing to do with your problem.
i disabled everything that could be restrective in some way.
>
>> Short after starting, everythings looks ok:
>
> <snip>
>
>> But after 3..5 hours all peers are rejected (ntpq> as) and LOCAL(0) is
>> the sync source.
>
> We need to see 'ntpq -p' after your ntpd has been running for those 3-5
> hours. We also need to see any ntpd messages in your syslog for that
> same period.
Tue Feb 27 16:29:09 CET 2007:
remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter
==============================================================================
entry.verboten. 130.149.17.21 2 u 296 1024 377 2110.41 906.197 30.261
ns1.nexellent.n 193.190.230.66 2 u 36 1024 377 2021.64 867.787 6.034
bryan.solnet.ch 192.53.103.104 2 u 1005 1024 377 2015.45 878.894 2.276
idaixds2.unizh. 130.60.128.7 3 u 1027 1024 376 2012.79 877.746 2.344
*LOCAL(0) LOCAL(0) 10 l 7 64 377 0.000 0.000 0.001
/var/log/ntp:
26 Feb 22:01:28 ntpd[26518]: synchronized to 217.147.208.1, stratum 2
26 Feb 22:25:17 ntpd[26518]: synchronized to 80.74.132.178, stratum 2
26 Feb 22:52:34 ntpd[26518]: offset -0.004164 sec freq 10.024 ppm error 0.007587 poll 8
26 Feb 23:18:30 ntpd[26518]: synchronized to 217.147.208.1, stratum 2
26 Feb 23:52:37 ntpd[26518]: offset -0.004624 sec freq 9.597 ppm error 0.000965 poll 9
27 Feb 00:06:12 ntpd[26518]: synchronized to 80.74.132.178, stratum 2
27 Feb 00:10:00 ntpd[26518]: synchronized to 212.101.4.253, stratum 3
27 Feb 00:15:52 ntpd[26518]: synchronized to LOCAL(0), stratum 10
27 Feb 00:52:40 ntpd[26518]: offset 0.000000 sec freq 9.597 ppm error 0.000001 poll 10
27 Feb 01:52:43 ntpd[26518]: offset 0.000000 sec freq 9.597 ppm error 0.000001 poll 10
27 Feb 02:52:46 ntpd[26518]: offset 0.000000 sec freq 9.597 ppm error 0.000001 poll 10
-- snap --
last line stays the same for the remaining of the day
>
>> Now i found that pps stability is always 512ppm and pll has a huge offset.
>
> You're not using PPS. Look at the PLL frequency, not the PPS stability.
i got this... see follow ups
>
>
so the question remains...
bg
till
More information about the questions
mailing list