On Sun, 30 Sep 2007, Adrian von Bidder wrote:

> On Friday 28 September 2007 21.25:37 Todd wrote:
>
> I strongly suspect that the new tickless timer system has not improved
> matters.  But note that this is pure speculation - anyonoe did any testing?
> (OTOH I have the impression that tickless has definitiely improved desktop
> snappiness here, and I'm eagerly awaiting CFS - and to me, this is more
> important than sub-microsecond timekeeping :-)

I run Linux 2.6.20.3 #1 SMP PREEMPT on my main ntp server and my kernel 
time stays between +- 5 ms of the servers I connect to to get time. I 
found that the quality of the hardware clock seems to be the most 
important thing to consider. I have machines that needs to poll 64 my main 
ntp server via the LAN in order for them to keep accurate time ;-)

An interesting thing to consider is that my main ntp server also runs 5 
instance of vmware-server and typically runs with more than 250 processes, 
not counting the within vmware virtual processes. So there is quite a bit 
of context switching going on on that machine. I also run about 2-5 
instances of the Xvnc graphical interface within the vmware servers.

Like you said some work have been done lately on linux kernel timer. I 
compiled 2.6.22.3 #4 SMP PREEMPT (latest is 2.6.22.9) on one machine and 
it seems to work fine as well as long as you have got a good hardware 
clock in the computer. There was a discussion on slashdot about CFS 
lately, you might want to review the comments. Basically, the 
complexity of the first draft is questioned, even by the author of CFS.
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/09/01/1853228

NOTE the poll values !

      remote           refid      st t when poll reach   delay   offset 
jitter
==============================================================================
+128.4.1.1       .PPS.            1 u  52m 137m  177   24.523    2.000 
1.163
*132.246.168.9   .PPS.            1 u  52m  68m  377   15.902    1.980 
0.288
-64.230.242.45   64.230.242.33    4 u  329 1024  377   24.796    3.221 
0.069
+69.156.254.2    132.246.168.164  3 u  350 1024  377   27.337    2.277 
1.214
-69.156.254.38   64.26.173.192    4 u 1322  68m  377   20.622    2.760 
1.212
+64.230.159.74   .GPS.            1 u  308 1024  377   29.891   -3.194 
5.222

top - 20:44:15 up 17:07,  1 user,  load average: 0.87, 0.76, 0.62
Tasks: 265 total,   2 running, 257 sleeping,   6 stopped,   0 zombie
Cpu(s): 10.1% us, 27.3% sy,  0.0% ni, 54.2% id,  4.0% wa,  1.5% hi,  2.8% 
si
Mem:   4131064k total,  3989456k used,   141608k free,     1560k buffers
Swap:  1999800k total,        0k used,  1999800k free,  3096380k cached



>
> cheers
> -- vbi
>
> -- 
> "It blows my mind that you can't get 3.5 ounces of toothpaste on a
> plane," he said, "yet somebody can sneak on a plane and take a nap."
>        -- http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/523482.html
>

Louis
http://blogtech.oc9.com
_______________________________________________
timekeepers mailing list
[email protected]
https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers

Reply via email to