Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 21:33:50 +0200 From: dirkx@webweaving.org To: Brandon Vincent <Brandon.Vincent@asu.edu> Cc: Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com>, hackers@freebsd.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What IS the right NTP behaviour ? Message-ID: <D567EF33-1A84-4AEF-A100-342C693A296C@webweaving.org> In-Reply-To: <CAJm4238%2BJCfg7Xb2vMJ4--4uLPXrjn6EJzuc8xJdAeA-aXr7-A@mail.gmail.com> References: <39337.1442999127@critter.freebsd.dk> <F6AF299A-17B1-44DF-B025-B8FA0BC833D4@kientzle.com> <CAJm4238%2BJCfg7Xb2vMJ4--4uLPXrjn6EJzuc8xJdAeA-aXr7-A@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 23 Sep 2015, at 20:04, Brandon Vincent <Brandon.Vincent@asu.edu> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Tim Kientzle <tim@kientzle.com> wrote: >> One concern I keep running into: Using NTP in VMs that are frequently suspended/resumed. Though I suppose this may be covered by your 'workstation' scenario (just step it after VM resume when you see the large skew). > > I would assume your hypervisor would sync the clock upon VM events. Does it not? We have a fair number of problems; both with suspended VMs and moving VMs - the hypervisor does the right thing - but things like can still spot a step change; even backward. Dw.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D567EF33-1A84-4AEF-A100-342C693A296C>