On Mon, 2008-01-28 at 00:11 +0100, Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Sun, Jan 27, 2008 at 01:44:44PM -0800, Ross Boylan wrote: > > Package: ntp > > Version: 1:4.2.4p4+dfsg-3 > > Severity: wishlist > > > > > > When upgrading from dfsg-2 to dfsg-3 the default ntp.conf file has changed > > from > > ------------------------- > > # pool.ntp.org maps to about 1000 low-stratum NTP servers. > > # Your server will pick a different set every time it starts up. > > # *** Please consider joining the pool! *** > > # *** <http://www.pool.ntp.org/join.html> *** > > # maxpoll works around a kernel bug in 2.6.18 and earlier > > server 0.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst dynamic maxpoll 7 > > server 1.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst dynamic maxpoll 7 > > server 2.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst dynamic maxpoll 7 > > server 3.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst dynamic maxpoll 7 > > ------------------------------------------- > > This "maxpoll" was never in any version that we provided. I would also > not recommend setting that.
Oops: I checked and I inserted this to deal with "kernel time sync error". https://support.ntp.org/bugs/show_bug.cgi?id=780 has more info on it, including the claim that a kernel bug is involved. (The bug, unfortunately, has a rather long back and forth). > > > -------------------------------------------- > > # pool.ntp.org maps to about 1000 low-stratum NTP servers. Your server will > > # pick a different set every time it starts up. Please consider joining the > > # pool: <http://www.pool.ntp.org/join.html> > > server 0.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst dynamic > > server 1.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst dynamic > > server 2.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst dynamic > > server 3.debian.pool.ntp.org iburst dynamic > > ------------------------------------------------- > > What has changed was the comment above the server entries, not the > server entries themself. > > > It would be helpful to know if the change arises from an assumption > > that the kernel will be > 2.6.18, or from some other fix. I have a > > system that is still on 2.6.18, and I don't know if the new conf file > > is safe for it. > > I have no idea why you think any of this is related to a kernel version. > ntpd should be able to work with any kernel version. Well, the comment and the bug above report a problem with some kernel versions. Sorry: this is clearly a bogus wish, and would be OK to close. However, I'm still not sure what to do about the kernel timesync error. I think I'm seeing it periodically on 2.6.22 systems as well. Ross -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
