Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2015 22:33:45 +0200 From: dirkx@webweaving.org To: Brian Reichert <reichert@numachi.com> Cc: Brandon Vincent <Brandon.Vincent@asu.edu>, hackers@freebsd.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: What IS the right NTP behaviour ? Message-ID: <D5902190-FC96-427B-A8DE-89E66500E145@webweaving.org> In-Reply-To: <20150923192729.GB78209@numachi.com> References: <39337.1442999127@critter.freebsd.dk> <F6AF299A-17B1-44DF-B025-B8FA0BC833D4@kientzle.com> <CAJm4238%2BJCfg7Xb2vMJ4--4uLPXrjn6EJzuc8xJdAeA-aXr7-A@mail.gmail.com> <20150923192729.GB78209@numachi.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> On 23 Sep 2015, at 21:27, Brian Reichert <reichert@numachi.com> wrote: >=20 > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 11:04:43AM -0700, Brandon Vincent 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). >>=20 >> I would assume your hypervisor would sync the clock upon VM events. = Does it not? >=20 > In my VMs that run an NTP client, I keep the hypervisor out of the > loop, and let the guest's NTP client to it's work. > = ..http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=3Den_US&c= md=3DdisplayKC&externalId=3D1006427 Aye - but I=E2=80=99ve not found any clean way of doing that =E2=80=94 = now a small rc.d file does a stop of ntpd, an ntpdate (because the jumps = are bigger than what ntpd by default will accomodate) and a restart of = ntpd. You=E2=80=99d perhaps want the kernel or userland (ntpd) to understand = more of this. Dw.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?D5902190-FC96-427B-A8DE-89E66500E145>