On 2012-12-13, Jeroen Mostert <jmost...@xs4all.nl> wrote: > On 2012-12-13 09:08, David Woolley wrote: >> Jeroen Mostert wrote: >> >>> negatively affect performance of the host (which makes sense, since driving >>> all virtuals with 1000 interrupts/sec can't be easy). Even so, >> >> You wouldn't expect 1ms ticks. You might get 20 ticks back to back, and then >> a >> gap of 20ms, or even larger numbers. VMs generally only get a virtual 1 >> second >> per second as a long term average. >> > If your virtualization is that poor, get a refund. :-) However, it's > certainly > true that you cannot count on high-frequency ticks in a VM. There's simply > not > enough horsepower on the guest to achieve that, unless you've got a > one-to-one > mapping between actual and virtual hardware (and then there's not much point > to > virtualizing). > >> There has been conflicting advice on running ntpd on VMs, but I suspect the >> current advice to run it is an easy way of getting coarse timing right. Fine >> timing should use the host timing and any special VM support for the OS. > > I agree. In the case of Windows on VMWare, however, there doesn't seem to be > any.
Perhaps you should follow the advice you gave in the first sentence of you response. > _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
