On Mar 25, 2011, at 10:37, Chuck Swiger wrote: > Well, take a look at the peerstats-- especially offset and jitter-- and > ntpd's rv assessment of the offset, jitter, and stability of the kernel clock > it is adjusting. The worst-case peer jitter if a factor of 4 worse in the VM > (2.468 vs. 0.585); best case is a factor of 7 difference: 0.276 vs 0.041; and > the jitter for the stratum-1 source using PPS is also a factor of 7 worse for > the VM (0.910 vs 0.126). You can repeat the same analysis with offset values > and rv stats.
Yes, definitely -- the non virtualized hardware is better at keeping time (and for practically anyone who's nitpicky enough about this to be subscribed here, maybe even significantly). However, I think the original assertion were: 1) Running ntpd is the best/easiest way to keep time in most/some/popular virtualized environments. 2) The ntpd will keep time "pretty good" -- and certainly good enough to participate in the pool. (As the other thread that's going right now made clear; part of our job here is to just help deal with the junk and gazillion SNTP clients and really any sort of time that's stop-watch close to real time is plenty good for that). - ask -- Ask Bjørn Hansen, http://askask.com/ _______________________________________________ pool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
