[ntp:questions] NTP vs RADclock?
rick.jones2 at hp.com
Tue Jun 12 00:53:03 UTC 2012
unruh <unruh at invalid.ca> wrote:
> OK, Since I set the rx-usecs: 0 the clients have lost that strong
> correlation of return trip to offset that they had. Ie, it does
> appear that there was interrupt coalescence going on in the receipt
> of the packets on my Gb etehrnet card, and it was adding randomly up
> to about 50us to the return trip ( and increasing the to the
> uncertainty of the clock measured offsets to about 10 us) Thus, if
> your server has a Gb etehrnet card, make sure it is actually running
> at Gb speed, and that the rx-usecs is 0.
The GbE NICs of other vendors will have different semantics for
rx-usecs == 3. In the case of e1000 (PCI-X and some PCIe cards
depending on era) (and probably e1000e - PCIe cards) driven NICs from
Intel a value of three means it was doing a dynamic interrupt
throttle/coalescing heuristic. Broadcom or other vendor NICs will
have different semantics, though indeed if all the -usecs and -frames
are set to zero it should disable interrupt coalescing in the
NIC. (Though best to triple check with the vendor documentation)
In the case of Intel GbE NICs, I think once one gets above a value of
'8' then one is setting an actual coalescing timer.
The effect of disabling interrupt coalescing on other aspects of
performance besides NTP is left as an exercise to the reader(s). One
increasingly old example can be seen, for the time being at least, at
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
More information about the questions