Subject: Re: ntpd oddities possibly related to sysctl change
To: Frederick Bruckman <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Sean Davis <email@example.com>
Date: 12/09/2003 01:38:43
On Tue, Dec 09, 2003 at 12:24:18AM -0600, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003, Sean Davis wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 08, 2003 at 11:08:26PM -0600, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> > > On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Sean Davis wrote:
> > >
> > > > Andrew: if this isn't related to the sysctl changes, sorry in advance, but
> > > > that's the only thing changed that I can think of between the time ntpd was
> > > > working as it used to be, and when it was working as it is now.
> > >
> > > Better, or worse? "ntpd" was just updated to 4.2.0.
> > I'm not sure if it's problematic or not - I'm just wondering about the
> > 'kernel time sync disabled 0041' then 'kernel time sync enabled 0001'
> > messages.
> That means the kernel discipline is working. It used to say "kernel
> status change" whenever ntp_adjtime() returned an error. Dave Mills
> changed that to say "kernel time sync disabled" plus the status code.
> The last one, "kernel time sync enabled", was added at my request,
> because reporting only "disabled" made it look like the kernel
> discipline was broken, when it wasn't.
> You shouldn't see any more than the three messages, unless you use
> "ntpdc" to manually "disable kernel" or "enable kernel".
Ah, okay. That clears it up, so in light of that, nothing at all is wrong
with ntp, sorry to atatat@ for accidentally pointing the blame for a
nonexistant problem at you simply because you changed sysctl, and thanks for
clarifying what was going on.
/~\ The ASCII
\ / Ribbon Campaign Sean Davis
X Against HTML aka dive
/ \ Email!