Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2017 16:17:52 +0000 From: Alexey Dokuchaev <danfe@FreeBSD.org> To: Alan Somers <asomers@freebsd.org> Cc: Cy Schubert <cy@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-head@freebsd.org" <svn-src-head@freebsd.org>, "svn-src-all@freebsd.org" <svn-src-all@freebsd.org>, "src-committers@freebsd.org" <src-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r324681 - in head/etc: defaults periodic/daily Message-ID: <20171017161752.GA43702@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CAOtMX2i8wSg=f=ST6V3Nx5jReVWqCWQhaBLO_KbVqgJG5wsAsQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <201710170115.v9H1FDbU046661@repo.freebsd.org> <CAOtMX2i8wSg=f=ST6V3Nx5jReVWqCWQhaBLO_KbVqgJG5wsAsQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20171017161752.GA43702>