[comp.protocols.time.ntp] Sequents running NTP

hakanson@CSE.OGI.EDU (Marion Hakanson) (03/28/91)

>Date: Wed, 27 Mar 91 17:33:45 PST
>From: (John Matzka) <matzka@sequent.com>
>
>> In article <9103192032.AA09380@sayshell.umd.edu> louie@SAYSHELL.UMD.EDU ("Louis A. Mamakos") writes:
>. . .
>> I have monitored uunet.uu.net for quite a while.  It does not keep good
>> time being usually some large fraction of a second off.  Its NTP daemon
>> seems to know this but be unable to correct the local time to less than
>> 1 second accuracy.  I assume this represents some problem with the
>> hardware or kernel.  The other systems at uunet don't seem to run NTP.
>> 
>> On the other hand for most people who are happy with the right second it
>> is probably good enough.
>
>uunet.uu.net is a Sequent S81 running a modified version of DYNIX 3.0.  As
>such, it does not support the adjtime() system call (unless support for it
>has been hacked up in some way) and thus cannot adjust its clock.  Note

There's another possible explanation for the situation at UUNET.  We also
run DYNIX-3.0(.17.v3) on a Sequent S81, with adjtime(2) spliced into the
kernel from 4.3bsd, complete with tickadj kernel variable, etc.  Our system
runs ntpd-3.4 quite nicely:

ogicse 63% ntpdc cse
   (rem)  Address   (lcl)      Strat Poll Reach    Delay   Offset    Disp
==========================================================================
*ansel.cse.ogi.e 129.95.40.2       2   64  376      20.0      0.0      5.0
+blake.u.washing 129.95.10.2       2 1024  377      33.0     13.0      4.0
+ulysses.CS.ORST 129.95.10.2       2 1024  377      77.0    -14.0     67.0

These dispersions and offsets are typical, and we've been running ntpd
on this machine for probably eight months, under all kinds of loads.
Our Sequent seems to have a pretty stable clock (both hardware and
software), in my experience, although the resolution is only 10ms.

Now, anyone who has one of these Sequents can tell you that the
ethernet interface can't handle much of a load.  The UUNET machine
qualifies as a box with a very high network load, I'd say, so it seems
likely that its going to suffer much more than our machine does.
Which means that the UUNET machine probably drops a lot of packets,
which does all kinds of fun things to an NTP session.  Of course, this
is more speculation.

As an aside, we just got our ether interfaces upgraded.  These are
SCED "V46/Turbo".  That's right, they put tiny turbochargers on there,
driven by, uh, well....

-- 
Marion Hakanson         Domain: hakanson@cse.ogi.edu
                        UUCP  : {hp-pcd,tektronix}!ogicse!hakanson