On Wed, Oct 20, 1999 at 09:14:12PM -0500, Bret Hughes wrote:
> Deos anyone have xntpd working on 2.2 kernels?
Yup. The Debian package tho'. I do see fairly lousy stability on the system
clock, but the machine is actually an ancient laptop (don't ask, okay? <g>
unless you're offering to donate hardware ;-)) and I think it is doing some
horrid power saving thing every now and then.. something also seems to
occasionally shaft the PCMCIA netcard.
> Oct 18 07:35:52 gateway1 xntpd[403]: synchronized to 165.91.52.110,
> stratum=3
> Oct 18 07:35:56 gateway1 xntpd[403]: time reset (step) 4.362638 s
> Oct 18 07:35:56 gateway1 xntpd[403]: synchronisation lost
> Oct 18 07:41:16 gateway1 xntpd[403]: synchronized to 165.91.52.110,
> stratum=3
> Oct 18 07:42:20 gateway1 xntpd[403]: kernel pll status change 89
> Oct 18 07:45:32 gateway1 xntpd[403]: synchronized to 129.237.32.1,
> stratum=2
> Oct 18 07:45:32 gateway1 xntpd[403]: kernel pll status change 89
> Oct 18 07:48:43 gateway1 xntpd[403]: synchronized to 165.91.52.110,
> stratum=3
> Oct 18 07:48:43 gateway1 xntpd[403]: synchronisation lost
Hmm, probably this means your system clock is not good. Do things not settle
down at all after a while? An interesting experiment would be to turn off
x+ntpd for a while and use adjtimex(8)'s --log option to compare the local
clock with a remote NTP server over, say, a day. It can then read the logfile
and estimate the drift (and any corrections you need to make to the kernel's
tick parameter).
> The linux notes in the package say the pll is broken and he knows about
> it . What can I do to fix it ?
I don't know -- I don't even know if this still applies. You might well find
more clueful people than me on comp.protocols.time.ntp.
--
Satellite Safety Tip #14:
If you see a bright streak in the sky coming at you, duck.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-net" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
