ntpd struggling to keep up - how to fix?

Torfinn Ingolfsen torfinn.ingolfsen at broadpark.no
Sat Feb 20 21:32:04 UTC 2010


On Sat, 20 Feb 2010 12:53:51 +1100
Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy at acm.org> wrote:

> Looks reasonable.  Let us know the results.  I'd be interested in
> the output from "ntpdc -c loopi -c sysi".

Ok, here we go (the server panic'ed again last night):
root at kg-f2# uptime
10:28PM  up  2:26, 3 users, load averages: 0.00, 0.00, 0.00
root at kg-f2# sysctl machdep.acpi_timer_freq
machdep.acpi_timer_freq: 3577045
root at kg-f2# tvlm
Feb 20 20:06:41 kg-f2 ntpd[942]: kernel time sync status change 2001
Feb 20 20:21:49 kg-f2 ntpd[942]: time reset +1.118880 s
Feb 20 20:37:53 kg-f2 ntpd[942]: time reset +1.188538 s
Feb 20 20:53:03 kg-f2 ntpd[942]: time reset +1.121903 s
Feb 20 21:09:00 kg-f2 ntpd[942]: time reset +1.179924 s
Feb 20 21:24:57 kg-f2 ntpd[942]: time reset +1.178490 s
Feb 20 21:39:58 kg-f2 ntpd[942]: time reset +1.110647 s
Feb 20 21:55:53 kg-f2 ntpd[942]: time reset +1.177292 s
Feb 20 22:11:44 kg-f2 ntpd[942]: time reset +1.172358 s
Feb 20 22:26:48 kg-f2 ntpd[942]: time reset +1.114350 s
root at kg-f2# ntpq -p
     remote           refid      st t when poll reach   delay   offset  jitter
==============================================================================
 kg-omni1.kg4.no 129.240.64.3     3 u    8   64    7    0.176  133.306  77.731
root at kg-f2# ntpdc -c loopi -c sysi
offset:               0.000000 s
frequency:            500.000 ppm
poll adjust:          4
watchdog timer:       194 s
system peer:          0.0.0.0
system peer mode:     unspec
leap indicator:       11
stratum:              16
precision:            -18
root distance:        0.00000 s
root dispersion:      0.00290 s
reference ID:         [83.84.69.80]
reference time:       00000000.00000000  Thu, Feb  7 2036  7:28:16.000
system flags:         auth monitor ntp kernel stats 
jitter:               0.358109 s
stability:            0.000 ppm
broadcastdelay:       0.003998 s
authdelay:            0.000000 s

Not synced at all. Not good. :-/
Perhaps I should give it more time?
-- 
Torfinn



More information about the freebsd-stable mailing list