Re: Slight Confusion with ntpd(8)
On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 05:12:12AM +, indivC wrote: > I'm a little confused with the man page for ntpd. > > For the '-n' flag, it says: > 'Configtest mode. Only check the configuration file for validity.'. > I have no problem with this and understand it. > > However, the section below that, which is still under '-n', says: > 'ntpd will stay in the foreground for up to 15 seconds > waiting for one of the configured NTP servers to reply.'. > > The second section seems to contradict the first, in my opinion. > If '-n' is only checking the configuration for validity, > then contacting an NTP server would be outside the scope > of file validation. > > Any clarity on this would be helpful. Thanks. > that extra bit of text belonged to the (now removed) -s option. -s was removed in revision 1.44, but that text got left in there by mistake. most worryingly, it's taken 3 years for anyone to notice! -s Always try to set the time at startup. By default ntpd attempts to set the time at boot only if constraints are figured and satisfied, and the clock should be moved forward. ntpd will stay in the foreground for up to 15 seconds waiting for one of the configured NTP servers to reply. i personally ok'd that commit! anyway, i've removed it. thanks for the mail. jmc
Re: Slight Confusion with ntpd(8)
On Sun, Nov 06, 2022 at 05:12:12AM +, indivC wrote: > I'm a little confused with the man page for ntpd. > > For the '-n' flag, it says: > 'Configtest mode. Only check the configuration file for validity.'. > I have no problem with this and understand it. > > However, the section below that, which is still under '-n', says: > 'ntpd will stay in the foreground for up to 15 seconds > waiting for one of the configured NTP servers to reply.'. > > The second section seems to contradict the first, in my opinion. > If '-n' is only checking the configuration for validity, > then contacting an NTP server would be outside the scope > of file validation. > > Any clarity on this would be helpful. Thanks. > This is a documentation error. The 2nd paragraph should be outside the option list. This is bettet I think. -Otto Index: ntpd.8 === RCS file: /home/cvs/src/usr.sbin/ntpd/ntpd.8,v retrieving revision 1.45 diff -u -p -r1.45 ntpd.8 --- ntpd.8 11 Nov 2019 17:42:28 - 1.45 +++ ntpd.8 6 Nov 2022 06:43:20 - @@ -59,10 +59,6 @@ instead of the default .It Fl n Configtest mode. Only check the configuration file for validity. -.Pp -.Nm -will stay in the foreground for up to 15 seconds waiting for one of the -configured NTP servers to reply. .It Fl v This option allows .Nm @@ -87,9 +83,11 @@ option, all calls to .Xr adjtime 2 will be logged. .Pp +At boot, .Nm -makes efforts to verify and correct the time at boot if constraints are -configured and satisfied or if trusted servers or sensors return results, +wlll stay for a maximum of 15 seconds in the foregorund and make efforts to +verify and correct the time if constraints are configured and +satisfied or if trusted servers or sensors return results, and if the clock is not being moved backwards. .Pp After the local clock is synchronized,
Slight Confusion with ntpd(8)
I'm a little confused with the man page for ntpd. For the '-n' flag, it says: 'Configtest mode. Only check the configuration file for validity.'. I have no problem with this and understand it. However, the section below that, which is still under '-n', says: 'ntpd will stay in the foreground for up to 15 seconds waiting for one of the configured NTP servers to reply.'. The second section seems to contradict the first, in my opinion. If '-n' is only checking the configuration for validity, then contacting an NTP server would be outside the scope of file validation. Any clarity on this would be helpful. Thanks.
Howto convert Sierra Wireless EM7455 from umsm to umb
Hi Misc, I have Sierra Wireless EM7455 on my OpenBSD 7.2 router device. OpenBSD detects this card like this: umsm0 at uhub0 port 7 configuration 1 interface 0 "Sierra Wireless, Incorporated Sierra Wireless EM7455 Qualcomm\M-. Snapdragon? X7 LTE-A" rev 3.00/0.06 addr 2 ucom0 at umsm0 umsm1 at uhub0 port 7 configuration 1 interface 2 "Sierra Wireless, Incorporated Sierra Wireless EM7455 Qualcomm\M-. Snapdragon? X7 LTE-A" rev 3.00/0.06 addr 2 ucom1 at umsm1 umsm2 at uhub0 port 7 configuration 1 interface 3 "Sierra Wireless, Incorporated Sierra Wireless EM7455 Qualcomm\M-. Snapdragon? X7 LTE-A" rev 3.00/0.06 addr 2 ucom2 at umsm2 umsm3 at uhub0 port 7 configuration 1 interface 8 "Sierra Wireless, Incorporated Sierra Wireless EM7455 Qualcomm\M-. Snapdragon? X7 LTE-A" rev 3.00/0.06 addr 2 ucom3 at umsm3 # usbdevs -v -a 02 addr 02: 1199:9071 Sierra Wireless, Incorporated, Sierra Wireless EM7455 Qualcomm\M-. Snapdragon? X7 LTE-A super speed, power 126 mA, config 1, rev 0.06, iSerial LF83917092031024 driver: umsm0 driver: umsm1 driver: umsm2 driver: umsm3 Is it possible to convert this card into MBIM mode to get an umb device? Thanks.
Re: Problem with TCP congestion control behaviour of OpenBSD
On Sun, Oct 30, 2022 at 6:36 AM William Goodspeed wrote: > Hello! I rented a VPS in USA and I'm currently in China. I'm having > trouble to download files from it and I believe it's caused by the TCP > congestion control. > > When I tried to download files via scp, the download speed started with > 500K/s and downgrade over time. Approximately 1 min later, the > download was stalled. What's worst was that I wouldn't able to connect > to obsd host after stalled (unless wating sometime to make it `forget' > my connection). I tried on a VPS with GNU/Linux and BBR. That didn't > happen. > > My question is: > >1. Is there a way to apply modern congestion control (like BBR) to > OpenBSD? (From stackoverflow, that's not supported) >2. If there isn't, how to implement that on OpenBSD? Please point > out some resources like OpenBSD source code or whatever. > > I'm not quite a programming expert but I'm interested in making it > work. I had a few linux kernel module developing experenice. Maybe I > can try to implement that on OpenBSD. > > I'm looking forward to your reply. > > -- > > William Goodspeed (龚志乐) > Langfang, Hebei, PRC Have you tried this with another system? In my experience, the Great Firewall of China does this type of rate-limiting to any traffic they don't recognize, and is not necessarily a problem on the OpenBSD side.
Re: Triple booting Windows/Debian/OpenBSD?
On 2022-11-05, Ottavio Caruso wrote: > > By the way: what's the status of Bluetooth on OpenBSD? At one point in > the past it was broken. Is it still the case? Will I be able to use my > BT headphones? Bluetooth support was incomplete and not useful in that state, it has been removed several years ago. You can use Bluetooth headphones via Creative BT-W1 / BT-W2 / BT-W3, there are also similar devices from other vendors which may work (they're often used with nintendo switch) - these attach as a USB audio device and handle the Bluetooth connection internally. -- Please keep replies on the mailing list.
Re: Triple booting Windows/Debian/OpenBSD?
The kernel recognises bluetooth devices Nov 5 11:32:25 fresh /bsd: ugen1 at uhub5 port 5 "Cambridge Silicon Radio Bluetooth" rev 2.00/88.91 addr 2 But there is no support in the system and, so far as I am aware, there is no one working on this. The few devs have too much to do already.
