From owner-svn-src-head@freebsd.org Tue Oct 17 16:17:53 2017 Return-Path: Delivered-To: svn-src-head@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7CC8BE3F1BE; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:17:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: from freefall.freebsd.org (freefall.freebsd.org [96.47.72.132]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "freefall.freebsd.org", Issuer "Let's Encrypt Authority X3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C36573737; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:17:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from danfe@freebsd.org) Received: by freefall.freebsd.org (Postfix, from userid 1033) id ABF5BFDEC; Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:17:52 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:17:52 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev To: Alan Somers Cc: Cy Schubert , "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" , "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" , "src-committers@freebsd.org" Subject: Re: svn commit: r324681 - in head/etc: defaults periodic/daily Message-ID: <20171017161752.GA43702@FreeBSD.org> References: <201710170115.v9H1FDbU046661@repo.freebsd.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.8.3 (2017-05-23) X-BeenThere: svn-src-head@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: SVN commit messages for the src tree for head/-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:17:53 -0000 On Tue, Oct 17, 2017 at 09:32:34AM -0600, Alan Somers wrote: > This change defeats the anticongestion mechanism. If > daily_ntpd_leapfile_background is set and 480.leapfile-ntpd runs > before any other periodic script that uses anticongestion (like > /usr/local/etc/periodic/security/410.pkg-audit), then the > anticongestion mechanism will effectively be disabled for those later > scripts. > > It's worth asking why you would want to do this in the background > anyway. Does the submitter complain that it was too slow? The entire > point of anticongestion is to slow it down. If the submitter didn't > like that, he could've set anticongestion_sleeptime=0 to disable it > entirely. Or was the problem that the "service ntpd onefetch" is too > slow, even after the anticongestion timer ran? I doubt it, but if so > then you should background just that part instead of backgrounding > anticongestion too. Good questions, thank you Alan. The commit message should have included answers to them, by the way (* insert usual rant about quality of commit logs here *). ./danfe