[ntp:questions] move_fd() causing bad behavior on AIX5.3

brandon.phillips at lmco.com brandon.phillips at lmco.com
Tue Nov 20 16:25:51 UTC 2007

Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Did you mean bug 604 or 614?  Regardless, both are marked FIXED, and 604 has
> been VERIFIED.

Oops, 614 is what I meant.  I did see that it is closed, but the
comments on it left me with some doubt about whether it had been
verified on AIX5 specifically.

> We don't do much testing under AIX because we don't have easy access to a
> box.
> An additional approach would be to use some of the assertion stuff in
> include/ntp_assert.h and see if you can get something to violate an
> assertion.

I will take a look at that.  We were interested in NTPv4 for the
ability to really always slew (tinker step 0) since our software is
allergic to time stepping.  We may abandon the idea though, due to
lack of confidence in the maturity of NTPv4 on AIX5.

> And if you can shed any light on bugs 135, 309, 598, or 716, that would be
> swell, too.

135, 716: still exist.  I had to explicitly compile away IPv6 support
to resolve the issue.

309: I don't think our setup would hit this so can't comment.

598: This is interesting since it also complains about the xntpd IBM
ships (which we currently use as well).  We have had some issues with
the clocks jumping back to 0:00...1970 after reboots; I believe we
finally convinced IBM there was a problem.  The other issues discussed
in this bug I am not sure about; we'll have to investigate and see if
they are contributing to time related pecularities.

More information about the questions mailing list