openbsd-misc
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ntp

To: roelf.schreurs@imc.nl
Subject: Re: ntp
From: Rémi Guyomarch <rguyom@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2002 08:00:27 +0100
Cc: misc@openbsd.org
In-reply-to: <JKEJKFKJPHBGCKJOHJMFGECPCBAA.rosc@imc.nl>; from rosc@imc.nl on Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 04:27:32PM +0100
References: <JKEJKFKJPHBGCKJOHJMFGECPCBAA.rosc@imc.nl>
Sender: owner-misc@openbsd.org
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i
On Wed, Feb 27, 2002 at 04:27:32PM +0100, Roelf Schreurs wrote:
> Hi
> we are running ntp as a server on a openbsd 2.9 machine.
> I would like to know (a bit off topic), what a reasonable time is that ntp
> keeps the time in sync.
> Can I expect the time to be synced to 0.01s or less all the time without
> exception?

No, at least not on common hardware :

                Offset(1)  Drift(2)   remarks
                                      
pingoo          -55.050     12.636    (3) + this is a Sun SS10
diabolo         -42.186     53.392    (3)
satanas          45.589    113.931    
baccus           49.172     36.068    
litdaemon        -1.161     11.942    this one is anormally good :)
rosette          55.364    -36.931    
stanislas        59.525     -1.407    

(1) in ms, as reported by 'ntpq -p'
(2) in ms, as reported by 'cat /etc/ntp.drift'
(3) Synced on an NTP server on the same 100 MBits/s ethernet LAN

Also, don't think that newer boxes will better keep the time
synced. Both 'satanas' and 'diabolo' there are significantly newer
than the other boxes and aren't particulary stronger in that area. The
'litdaemon' box is at least 5 years old and it wasn't an high-end box
at the time we buyed it.
All these boxes have uptimes of at least one month.

-- 
Rémi

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • ntp, Roelf Schreurs
    • Re: ntp, Rémi Guyomarch <=