From owner-freebsd-questions Sat Apr 6 6:35:14 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from topaz.mdcc.cx (topaz.mdcc.cx [212.204.230.141]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 440D637B405 for ; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 06:35:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from k7.mavetju.org (topaz.mdcc.cx [212.204.230.141]) by topaz.mdcc.cx (Postfix) with ESMTP id 58A452B671; Sat, 6 Apr 2002 16:35:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: by k7.mavetju.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 3B8655C1; Sun, 7 Apr 2002 00:34:59 +1000 (EST) Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2002 00:34:59 +1000 From: Edwin Groothuis To: Casey Scott Cc: freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: ntpd Message-ID: <20020407003459.H56548@k7.mavetju.org> Mail-Followup-To: Edwin Groothuis , Casey Scott , freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG References: <000701c1dd75$f3b1c330$0601a8c0@nixfusion.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <000701c1dd75$f3b1c330$0601a8c0@nixfusion.com>; from casey@nixfusion.com on Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 09:18:40AM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 09:18:40AM -0500, Casey Scott wrote: > The following messages log entries are concerning me. I don't know if I > should interpret it as the system isn't updating it's time properly, or it's > time keeping mechanism is bad. > > Apr 6 00:09:19 spareparts ntpd[12778]: kernel time discipline status 2040 > Apr 6 00:12:43 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -72.208070 s > Apr 6 00:12:43 spareparts ntpd[12778]: kernel time discipline status change > 2041 > Apr 6 00:34:02 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -71.751602 s > Apr 6 00:51:18 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -70.855702 s > Apr 6 01:09:32 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -69.938346 s > Apr 6 01:26:46 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -69.033806 s > Apr 6 01:42:51 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -68.149020 s > Apr 6 02:00:04 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -67.230867 s > Apr 6 02:17:13 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -66.324598 s > Apr 6 02:41:46 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -65.367397 s > Apr 6 02:59:00 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -64.338242 s > Apr 6 03:19:21 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -63.355782 s > Apr 6 03:35:37 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -62.464309 s > Apr 6 03:56:01 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -61.472339 s > Apr 6 04:15:18 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -60.512887 s > Apr 6 04:31:19 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -59.651892 s > Apr 6 04:48:32 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -58.749998 s > Apr 6 05:05:36 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -57.872887 s > Apr 6 05:22:43 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -56.942257 s > Apr 6 05:45:14 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -55.909788 s > Apr 6 06:02:31 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -54.998330 s > Apr 6 06:25:09 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -54.157019 s > Apr 6 06:34:50 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -53.274896 s > Apr 6 06:58:22 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -52.248662 s > Apr 6 07:14:29 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -51.331915 s > Apr 6 07:37:01 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -50.367300 s > Apr 6 07:48:49 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -49.530241 s > Apr 6 08:04:54 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -48.663439 s > Apr 6 08:26:22 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -47.709321 s > Apr 6 08:41:21 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -46.791000 s > Apr 6 09:04:57 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -45.934261 s > Apr 6 09:12:26 spareparts ntpd[12778]: time slew -45.155585 s > > Isn't the system suppose to adjust it's time after the ntp query > provides the correct time? Why does it only seem to be getting better a > second or so at a time? I would appreciate any advice. It is adjusting, the time slew is getting less and less. Because the initial offset is pretty large (70 seconds), it take a while before the system is back. If you want to give it a cold turkey, you could use "ntpdate" which (re)sets the clock to the right value at once. But xntp does it quietly, close to undetectable for the machine and the processes. Edwin -- Edwin Groothuis | Personal website: http://www.MavEtJu.org edwin@mavetju.org | Interested in MUDs? Visit Fatal Dimensions: ------------------+ http://www.FatalDimensions.org/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message