On 2025-08-27 15:57:01 [+0200], Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > On Tue, Aug 26, 2025 at 02:59:12PM +0200, Sebastian Andrzej Siewior wrote: > > The benchmark is about > 1k packets/ second while in reality you have > > less than 20 packets a second. > > I don't want to argue about which use case is more important, but it's > normal for NTP servers to receive requests at much higher rates than > that. In some countries, public servers get hundreds of thousands of > packets per second. A server in a local network may have clients > polling 128 times per second each.
There might be a misunderstanding here. You can't receive 1k packets a second and each one with a HW timestamp for PTP. This does not work. SW timestamps more likely. > Anyway, if anyone is still interested in finding out the cause of > the regression, there is a thing I forgot to mention for the > reproducer using ntpperf. chronyd needs to be configured with a larger > clientloglimit (e.g. clientloglimit 100000000), otherwise it won't be > able to respond to the large number of clients in interleaved mode > with a HW TX timestamp. The chronyc serverstats report would show > that. It should look like the outputs I posted here before. How does this work with HW timestamps vs SW? I can't believe that 1k packets are sent and all of them receive a HW timestamp. Sebastian
