Re: host, bhyve vm and ntpd
25.10.2017 01:14, Ian Lepore пишет: > Can you show the /var/db/ntpd.drift file contents of the host and > guest? Ideally, now that it's stable, the two values should be very > close. If they're not, maybe this isn't the right fix. Sorry, no. :-( I experimented with the host and bhyve vm now has unstable ntp values (stepping). I'll try to revert all my changes and report back in a couple of days. -- WBR, bsam ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: host, bhyve vm and ntpd
On Wed, 2017-10-25 at 00:43 +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > Hi Ian, All! > > 22.10.2017 01:15, Ian Lepore пишет: > > > > On Sat, 2017-10-21 at 17:07 -0400, Michael Voorhis wrote: > > > > > > Ian Lepore writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > Beyond that, I'm not sure what else to try. It might be necessary to > > > > get some bhyve developers involved (I know almost nothing about it). > > > NTPD behaves more normally on uniprocessor VMs. > > > > > > A FreeBSD bhyve-guest running on a freebsd host will select a > > > different timecounter depending on whether it is a multiprocessor or a > > > uniprocessor. My uniprocessor bhyve-vm selected TSC-low as the best > > > timecounter in a uniprocessor. NTP functions there as expected. > > > > > > kern.timecounter.choice: TSC-low(1000) ACPI-fast(900) HPET(950) i8254(0) > > > dummy(-100) > > > kern.timecounter.hardware: TSC-low > > > > > > The very same VM, when given two total CPUs, selected HPET (if I > > > recall) and the timekeeping with NTPD was unreliable, with many > > > step-resets to the clock. > > > > > Hmm, I just had glance at the code in sys/amd64/vmm/io/vhpet.c and it > > looks right. I wonder if this is just a simple roundoff error in > > converting between 10.0MHz and SBT units? If so, that could be wished > > away easily by using a power-of-2 frequency for the virtual HPET. I > > wonder if the attached patch is all that's needed? > I suppose the answer is "yes", the patch helped. Here are two samples > (host for bhyve VM without your patch and after patching): > --- > https://poudriere.passap.ru/misc/ntpd.jot.log-HPET.frequency.1000.txt > https://poudriere.passap.ru/misc/ntpd.jot.log-HPET.frequency.16777216.txt > --- > > The command was: > % for t in `jot 1000`; do ntpq -pn; sleep 64; done > > The patch made the system to stabilize the process. > Ian, thank you! > Hmmm. The startup behavior wasn't great, it took a long time and several clock steps for it to figure out the frequency error and get the clock under control. But, as you say, it did eventually stabilize this time. Can you show the /var/db/ntpd.drift file contents of the host and guest? Ideally, now that it's stable, the two values should be very close. If they're not, maybe this isn't the right fix. -- Ian ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: host, bhyve vm and ntpd
Hi Ian, All! 22.10.2017 01:15, Ian Lepore пишет: > On Sat, 2017-10-21 at 17:07 -0400, Michael Voorhis wrote: >> Ian Lepore writes: >>> >>> Beyond that, I'm not sure what else to try. It might be necessary to >>> get some bhyve developers involved (I know almost nothing about it). >> NTPD behaves more normally on uniprocessor VMs. >> >> A FreeBSD bhyve-guest running on a freebsd host will select a >> different timecounter depending on whether it is a multiprocessor or a >> uniprocessor. My uniprocessor bhyve-vm selected TSC-low as the best >> timecounter in a uniprocessor. NTP functions there as expected. >> >> kern.timecounter.choice: TSC-low(1000) ACPI-fast(900) HPET(950) i8254(0) >> dummy(-100) >> kern.timecounter.hardware: TSC-low >> >> The very same VM, when given two total CPUs, selected HPET (if I >> recall) and the timekeeping with NTPD was unreliable, with many >> step-resets to the clock. >> > > Hmm, I just had glance at the code in sys/amd64/vmm/io/vhpet.c and it > looks right. I wonder if this is just a simple roundoff error in > converting between 10.0MHz and SBT units? If so, that could be wished > away easily by using a power-of-2 frequency for the virtual HPET. I > wonder if the attached patch is all that's needed? I suppose the answer is "yes", the patch helped. Here are two samples (host for bhyve VM without your patch and after patching): --- https://poudriere.passap.ru/misc/ntpd.jot.log-HPET.frequency.1000.txt https://poudriere.passap.ru/misc/ntpd.jot.log-HPET.frequency.16777216.txt --- The command was: % for t in `jot 1000`; do ntpq -pn; sleep 64; done The patch made the system to stabilize the process. Ian, thank you! -- WBR, bsam ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: host, bhyve vm and ntpd
22.10.2017 19:02, Ian Lepore пишет: > On Sun, 2017-10-22 at 11:31 +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: >> 22.10.2017 01:15, Ian Lepore пишет: >>> >>> On Sat, 2017-10-21 at 17:07 -0400, Michael Voorhis wrote: Ian Lepore writes: > > > Beyond that, I'm not sure what else to try. It might be necessary to > get some bhyve developers involved (I know almost nothing about it). NTPD behaves more normally on uniprocessor VMs. A FreeBSD bhyve-guest running on a freebsd host will select a different timecounter depending on whether it is a multiprocessor or a uniprocessor. My uniprocessor bhyve-vm selected TSC-low as the best timecounter in a uniprocessor. NTP functions there as expected. kern.timecounter.choice: TSC-low(1000) ACPI-fast(900) HPET(950) i8254(0) dummy(-100) kern.timecounter.hardware: TSC-low The very same VM, when given two total CPUs, selected HPET (if I recall) and the timekeeping with NTPD was unreliable, with many step-resets to the clock. >>> Hmm, I just had glance at the code in sys/amd64/vmm/io/vhpet.c and it >>> looks right. I wonder if this is just a simple roundoff error in >>> converting between 10.0MHz and SBT units? If so, that could be wished >>> away easily by using a power-of-2 frequency for the virtual HPET. I >>> wonder if the attached patch is all that's needed? >> I've tried the patch (at bhyve guest) and nothing has changed. Should >> the patched system be tested at bhyve guest or bhyve host? >> > > Oh, I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that's for the host side. NP, that's OK. However, the host is busy now, and I'll have an opportunity to test host only tomorrow evening. Ian, thank you for your help! -- WBR, bsam ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: host, bhyve vm and ntpd
On Sun, 2017-10-22 at 11:31 +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > 22.10.2017 01:15, Ian Lepore пишет: > > > > On Sat, 2017-10-21 at 17:07 -0400, Michael Voorhis wrote: > > > > > > Ian Lepore writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > Beyond that, I'm not sure what else to try. It might be necessary to > > > > get some bhyve developers involved (I know almost nothing about it). > > > NTPD behaves more normally on uniprocessor VMs. > > > > > > A FreeBSD bhyve-guest running on a freebsd host will select a > > > different timecounter depending on whether it is a multiprocessor or a > > > uniprocessor. My uniprocessor bhyve-vm selected TSC-low as the best > > > timecounter in a uniprocessor. NTP functions there as expected. > > > > > > kern.timecounter.choice: TSC-low(1000) ACPI-fast(900) HPET(950) i8254(0) > > > dummy(-100) > > > kern.timecounter.hardware: TSC-low > > > > > > The very same VM, when given two total CPUs, selected HPET (if I > > > recall) and the timekeeping with NTPD was unreliable, with many > > > step-resets to the clock. > > > > > Hmm, I just had glance at the code in sys/amd64/vmm/io/vhpet.c and it > > looks right. I wonder if this is just a simple roundoff error in > > converting between 10.0MHz and SBT units? If so, that could be wished > > away easily by using a power-of-2 frequency for the virtual HPET. I > > wonder if the attached patch is all that's needed? > I've tried the patch (at bhyve guest) and nothing has changed. Should > the patched system be tested at bhyve guest or bhyve host? > Oh, I'm sorry, I should have mentioned that's for the host side. -- Ian ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: host, bhyve vm and ntpd
22.10.2017 18:22, Rodney W. Grimes пишет: > [ Charset UTF-8 unsupported, converting... ] >> 22.10.2017 01:15, Ian Lepore ?: >>> On Sat, 2017-10-21 at 17:07 -0400, Michael Voorhis wrote: Ian Lepore writes: > > Beyond that, I'm not sure what else to try. ?It might be necessary to > get some bhyve developers involved (I know almost nothing about it). NTPD behaves more normally on uniprocessor VMs. A FreeBSD bhyve-guest running on a freebsd host will select a different timecounter depending on whether it is a multiprocessor or a uniprocessor.??My uniprocessor bhyve-vm selected TSC-low as the best timecounter in a uniprocessor.??NTP functions there as expected. kern.timecounter.choice: TSC-low(1000) ACPI-fast(900) HPET(950) i8254(0) dummy(-100) kern.timecounter.hardware: TSC-low The very same VM, when given two total CPUs, selected HPET (if I recall) and the timekeeping with NTPD was unreliable, with many step-resets to the clock. >>> >>> Hmm, I just had glance at the code in?sys/amd64/vmm/io/vhpet.c and it >>> looks right. ?I wonder if this is just a simple roundoff error in >>> converting between 10.0MHz and SBT units? ?If so, that could be wished >>> away easily by using a power-of-2 frequency for the virtual HPET. ?I >>> wonder if the attached patch is all that's needed? >> I've tried the patch (at bhyve guest) and nothing has changed. Should >> the patched system be tested at bhyve guest or bhyve host? > > I believe the suggested patch would have to be made to the bhyve > host OK, I'd do it tomorrow and report back. >. Also on the host and guest what are the values of > sysctl kern.timecounter.tc.HPET > sysctl kern.timecounter.tc.i8254 Here they are: --- bhyve-host% sysctl kern.timecounter.tc.HPET kern.timecounter.tc.HPET.quality: 950 kern.timecounter.tc.HPET.frequency: 14318180 kern.timecounter.tc.HPET.counter: 2138094157 kern.timecounter.tc.HPET.mask: 4294967295 bhyve-host% sysctl kern.timecounter.tc.i8254 kern.timecounter.tc.i8254.quality: 0 kern.timecounter.tc.i8254.frequency: 1193182 kern.timecounter.tc.i8254.counter: 54883 kern.timecounter.tc.i8254.mask: 65535 --- bhyve-guest% sysctl kern.timecounter.tc.HPET kern.timecounter.tc.HPET.quality: 950 kern.timecounter.tc.HPET.frequency: 1000 kern.timecounter.tc.HPET.counter: 969429421 kern.timecounter.tc.HPET.mask: 4294967295 bhyve-guest% sysctl kern.timecounter.tc.i8254 kern.timecounter.tc.i8254.quality: 0 kern.timecounter.tc.i8254.frequency: 1193182 kern.timecounter.tc.i8254.counter: 39893 kern.timecounter.tc.i8254.mask: 65535 --- > Getting good ntpd behavior in a VM guest of any kind is sometimes a > non trivial thing to do. As a side note, I have a CentOS-7 bhyve VM at the same host. And it was enough to run chronyd with default config. Which stepped twice and is stable (no messages) for several days, current log: --- Oct 19 16:01:03 c.vpn systemd[1]: Starting NTP client/server... Oct 19 16:01:03 c.vpn chronyd[27043]: chronyd version 3.1 starting (+CMDMON +NTP +REFCLOCK +RTC +PRIVDROP +SCFILTER +SECHASH +SIGND +ASYNCDNS +IPV6 +DEBUG) Oct 19 16:01:03 c.vpn chronyd[27043]: Frequency 0.000 +/- 100.000 ppm read from /var/lib/chrony/drift Oct 19 16:01:03 c.vpn systemd[1]: Started NTP client/server. Oct 19 16:01:07 c.vpn chronyd[27043]: Selected source XX.XX.XX.1 Oct 19 16:01:07 c.vpn chronyd[27043]: System clock wrong by -44.392782 seconds, adjustment started Oct 19 16:00:23 c.vpn chronyd[27043]: System clock was stepped by -44.392782 seconds Oct 19 16:00:34 c.vpn chronyd[27043]: System clock was stepped by 0.01 seconds --- -- WBR, bsam ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: host, bhyve vm and ntpd
22.10.2017 01:15, Ian Lepore пишет: > On Sat, 2017-10-21 at 17:07 -0400, Michael Voorhis wrote: >> Ian Lepore writes: >>> >>> Beyond that, I'm not sure what else to try. It might be necessary to >>> get some bhyve developers involved (I know almost nothing about it). >> NTPD behaves more normally on uniprocessor VMs. >> >> A FreeBSD bhyve-guest running on a freebsd host will select a >> different timecounter depending on whether it is a multiprocessor or a >> uniprocessor. My uniprocessor bhyve-vm selected TSC-low as the best >> timecounter in a uniprocessor. NTP functions there as expected. >> >> kern.timecounter.choice: TSC-low(1000) ACPI-fast(900) HPET(950) i8254(0) >> dummy(-100) >> kern.timecounter.hardware: TSC-low >> >> The very same VM, when given two total CPUs, selected HPET (if I >> recall) and the timekeeping with NTPD was unreliable, with many >> step-resets to the clock. >> > > Hmm, I just had glance at the code in sys/amd64/vmm/io/vhpet.c and it > looks right. I wonder if this is just a simple roundoff error in > converting between 10.0MHz and SBT units? If so, that could be wished > away easily by using a power-of-2 frequency for the virtual HPET. I > wonder if the attached patch is all that's needed? I've tried the patch (at bhyve guest) and nothing has changed. Should the patched system be tested at bhyve guest or bhyve host? -- WBR, bsam ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: host, bhyve vm and ntpd
22.10.2017 00:07, Michael Voorhis пишет: > Ian Lepore writes: >> Beyond that, I'm not sure what else to try. It might be necessary to >> get some bhyve developers involved (I know almost nothing about it). > > NTPD behaves more normally on uniprocessor VMs. > > A FreeBSD bhyve-guest running on a freebsd host will select a > different timecounter depending on whether it is a multiprocessor or a > uniprocessor. My uniprocessor bhyve-vm selected TSC-low as the best > timecounter in a uniprocessor. NTP functions there as expected. > > kern.timecounter.choice: TSC-low(1000) ACPI-fast(900) HPET(950) i8254(0) > dummy(-100) > kern.timecounter.hardware: TSC-low > > The very same VM, when given two total CPUs, selected HPET (if I > recall) and the timekeeping with NTPD was unreliable, with many > step-resets to the clock. Yep, the same here. I've switched to TSC-low at Bhyve guest and there is no stepping per 24 hours. -- WBR, bsam ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: host, bhyve vm and ntpd
On Sat, 2017-10-21 at 17:07 -0400, Michael Voorhis wrote:
> Ian Lepore writes:
> >
> > Beyond that, I'm not sure what else to try. It might be necessary to
> > get some bhyve developers involved (I know almost nothing about it).
> NTPD behaves more normally on uniprocessor VMs.
>
> A FreeBSD bhyve-guest running on a freebsd host will select a
> different timecounter depending on whether it is a multiprocessor or a
> uniprocessor. My uniprocessor bhyve-vm selected TSC-low as the best
> timecounter in a uniprocessor. NTP functions there as expected.
>
> kern.timecounter.choice: TSC-low(1000) ACPI-fast(900) HPET(950) i8254(0)
> dummy(-100)
> kern.timecounter.hardware: TSC-low
>
> The very same VM, when given two total CPUs, selected HPET (if I
> recall) and the timekeeping with NTPD was unreliable, with many
> step-resets to the clock.
>
Hmm, I just had glance at the code in sys/amd64/vmm/io/vhpet.c and it
looks right. I wonder if this is just a simple roundoff error in
converting between 10.0MHz and SBT units? If so, that could be wished
away easily by using a power-of-2 frequency for the virtual HPET. I
wonder if the attached patch is all that's needed?
-- Ian
Index: sys/amd64/vmm/io/vhpet.c
===
--- sys/amd64/vmm/io/vhpet.c (revision 324176)
+++ sys/amd64/vmm/io/vhpet.c (working copy)
@@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ __FBSDID("$FreeBSD$");
static MALLOC_DEFINE(M_VHPET, "vhpet", "bhyve virtual hpet");
-#define HPET_FREQ 1000 /* 10.0 Mhz */
+#define HPET_FREQ 16777216 /* 16.7 (2^24) Mhz */
#define FS_PER_S 1000ul
/* Timer N Configuration and Capabilities Register */
___
freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization
To unsubscribe, send any mail to
"freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: host, bhyve vm and ntpd
Ian Lepore writes: > Beyond that, I'm not sure what else to try. It might be necessary to > get some bhyve developers involved (I know almost nothing about it). NTPD behaves more normally on uniprocessor VMs. A FreeBSD bhyve-guest running on a freebsd host will select a different timecounter depending on whether it is a multiprocessor or a uniprocessor. My uniprocessor bhyve-vm selected TSC-low as the best timecounter in a uniprocessor. NTP functions there as expected. kern.timecounter.choice: TSC-low(1000) ACPI-fast(900) HPET(950) i8254(0) dummy(-100) kern.timecounter.hardware: TSC-low The very same VM, when given two total CPUs, selected HPET (if I recall) and the timekeeping with NTPD was unreliable, with many step-resets to the clock. ___ freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-virtualization To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-virtualization-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
Re: host, bhyve vm and ntpd
On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 21:15 +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > 20.10.2017 21:04, Ian Lepore пишет: > > > > On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 20:20 +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > > > > > > (CC to freebsd-virtualization@) > > > > > > 20.10.2017 19:32, Ian Lepore пишет: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:36 +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 20.10.2017 18:31, Boris Samorodov пишет: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 20.10.2017 18:12, Ian Lepore пишет: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 14:46 +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have got a host: > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > bhyve-host% uname -a > > > > > > > > FreeBSD sm.bsnet 12.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT #3 r322868: > > > > > > > > Fri Aug > > > > > > > > 25 05:25:26 MSK 2017 > > > > > > > > bsam@builder.bsnet:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC-FAST amd64 > > > > > > > > amd64 > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And a bhyve vm: > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > bhyve-vm: uname -a > > > > > > > > FreeBSD builder.bsnet 12.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT #58 > > > > > > > > r324782: Fri > > > > > > > > Oct 20 05:12:17 MSK 2017 > > > > > > > > bsam@builder.bsnet:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/PKG64X amd64 amd64 > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The only difference at kernel configs is a colored console. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And here I get some weird (is it?) result at the VM (I expect > > > > > > > > ntpd to be > > > > > > > > more stable): > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > bhyve-vm% for t in `jot 10`; do ntpq -pn; sleep 64; done > > > > > > > > remote refid st t when poll reach delay > > > > > > > > offset > > > > > > > > jitter > > > > > > > > == > > > > > > > > XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u9 6430.605 > > > > > > > > -1.202 > > > > > > > > 316.407 > > > > > > > > XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u7 6470.605 > > > > > > > > -1.202 > > > > > > > > 358.395 > > > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u5 64 170.615 > > > > > > > > -328.42 > > > > > > > > 181.405 > > > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u3 64 370.615 > > > > > > > > -328.42 > > > > > > > > 214.868 > > > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 67 64 370.615 > > > > > > > > -328.42 > > > > > > > > 214.868 > > > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 63 64 770.615 > > > > > > > > -328.42 > > > > > > > > 268.618 > > > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 60 64 1770.615 > > > > > > > > -328.42 > > > > > > > > 333.175 > > > > > > > > XX.XX.XX.1 .STEP. 16 u 1910 6400.000 > > > > > > > > 0.000 > > > > > > > > 0.000 > > > > > > > > XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 27 6410.703 > > > > > > > > -262.63 > > > > > > > > 0.004 > > > > > > > > XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 31 6410.649 > > > > > > > > -331.43 > > > > > > > > 68.800 > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > At the same time host's results are very stable: > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > bhyve-host% for t in `jot 10`; do ntpq -pn; sleep 64; done > > > > > > > > remote refid st t when poll reach delay > > > > > > > > offset > > > > > > > > jitter > > > > > > > > == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u1 6410.401 > > > > > > > > 0.176 > > > > > > > > 0.106 > > > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u6 6430.401 > > > > > > > > 0.176 > > > > > > > > 0.459 > > > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u3 6470.401 > > > > > > > > 0.176 > > > > > > > > 0.940 > > > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 67 6470.401 > > > > > > > > 0.176 > > > > > > > > 0.940 > > > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 64 64 170.401 > > > > > > > > 0.176 > > > > > > > > 1.566 > > > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 60 64 370.448 > > > > > > > > 1.275 > > > > > > > > 1.739 > > > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 55 64 770.448 > > > > > > > > 1.275 > > > > > > > > 2.365 > > > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 53 64 1770.448 > > > > > > > > 1.275 > > > > > > > > 3.110 > > > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 50 64 3770.448 > > > > > > > > 1.275 > > > > > > > > 3.929 > > > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 45 64 3770.443 > > > > > > > > 8.750 > > > > > > > > 4.722 > > > > > > > > ---
Re: host, bhyve vm and ntpd
20.10.2017 21:04, Ian Lepore пишет: > On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 20:20 +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: >> (CC to freebsd-virtualization@) >> >> 20.10.2017 19:32, Ian Lepore пишет: >>> >>> On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:36 +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: 20.10.2017 18:31, Boris Samorodov пишет: > > > 20.10.2017 18:12, Ian Lepore пишет: >> >> >> On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 14:46 +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: >>> >>> >>> Hi All, >>> >>> I have got a host: >>> --- >>> bhyve-host% uname -a >>> FreeBSD sm.bsnet 12.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT #3 r322868: Fri Aug >>> 25 05:25:26 MSK 2017 >>> bsam@builder.bsnet:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC-FAST amd64 amd64 >>> --- >>> >>> And a bhyve vm: >>> --- >>> bhyve-vm: uname -a >>> FreeBSD builder.bsnet 12.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT #58 r324782: Fri >>> Oct 20 05:12:17 MSK 2017 >>> bsam@builder.bsnet:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/PKG64X amd64 amd64 >>> --- >>> >>> The only difference at kernel configs is a colored console. :-) >>> >>> And here I get some weird (is it?) result at the VM (I expect ntpd to be >>> more stable): >>> --- >>> bhyve-vm% for t in `jot 10`; do ntpq -pn; sleep 64; done >>> remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset >>> jitter >>> == >>> XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u9 6430.605 -1.202 >>> 316.407 >>> XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u7 6470.605 -1.202 >>> 358.395 >>> *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u5 64 170.615 -328.42 >>> 181.405 >>> *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u3 64 370.615 -328.42 >>> 214.868 >>> *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 67 64 370.615 -328.42 >>> 214.868 >>> *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 63 64 770.615 -328.42 >>> 268.618 >>> *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 60 64 1770.615 -328.42 >>> 333.175 >>> XX.XX.XX.1 .STEP. 16 u 1910 6400.0000.000 >>> 0.000 >>> XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 27 6410.703 -262.63 >>> 0.004 >>> XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 31 6410.649 -331.43 >>> 68.800 >>> --- >>> >>> At the same time host's results are very stable: >>> --- >>> bhyve-host% for t in `jot 10`; do ntpq -pn; sleep 64; done >>> remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset >>> jitter >>> == >>> >>> >>> >>> *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u1 6410.4010.176 >>> 0.106 >>> *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u6 6430.4010.176 >>> 0.459 >>> *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u3 6470.4010.176 >>> 0.940 >>> *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 67 6470.4010.176 >>> 0.940 >>> *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 64 64 170.4010.176 >>> 1.566 >>> *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 60 64 370.4481.275 >>> 1.739 >>> *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 55 64 770.4481.275 >>> 2.365 >>> *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 53 64 1770.4481.275 >>> 3.110 >>> *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 50 64 3770.4481.275 >>> 3.929 >>> *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 45 64 3770.4438.750 >>> 4.722 >>> --- >>> >>> The network is organized via bridge -- host igb and vm tap interfaces >>> are members of one bridge. >>> >>> Are those results expected? Does it smell like a bug? Should I dig >>> furter? >>> >> So it is repeatedly stepping the clock in the VM? (Set >> kern.timecounter.stepwarnings=1 to log steps). > No kernel/ntpd messages for 20 minutes after setting this sysctl. > >> >> >> That is usually a sign >> that the chosen timecounter is running at a different frequency than it >> claimed to be when it registered itself -- the host may not be >> emulating the timer hardware properly in the guest. What is the output >> of sysctl kern.timecounter in the vm? > --- > bhyve-vm% sysctl kern.timecounter > > kern.timecounter.tsc_shift: 1 > kern.timecounter.smp_tsc_adjust: 0 > kern.timecounter.smp_tsc: 0 > kern.timecounter.invariant_tsc: 1 > kern.timecounter.fast_gettime: 1 > kern.timecounter.tick: 1 > kern.timecounter.choice: ACPI-fast(900) HPET(950) i8254(0) TSC-low(-100) > dummy(-100) > kern.timecounter.hardware: HPET > kern.timecounter.alloweddeviation: 5 > kern.timecounter.stepwarnings: 1 > kern.timecounter.tc.ACPI-fast.quality: 900 >
Re: host, bhyve vm and ntpd
On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 20:20 +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > (CC to freebsd-virtualization@) > > 20.10.2017 19:32, Ian Lepore пишет: > > > > On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:36 +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > > > > > > 20.10.2017 18:31, Boris Samorodov пишет: > > > > > > > > > > > > 20.10.2017 18:12, Ian Lepore пишет: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 14:46 +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > > > I have got a host: > > > > > > --- > > > > > > bhyve-host% uname -a > > > > > > FreeBSD sm.bsnet 12.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT #3 r322868: Fri > > > > > > Aug > > > > > > 25 05:25:26 MSK 2017 > > > > > > bsam@builder.bsnet:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC-FAST amd64 amd64 > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > And a bhyve vm: > > > > > > --- > > > > > > bhyve-vm: uname -a > > > > > > FreeBSD builder.bsnet 12.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT #58 > > > > > > r324782: Fri > > > > > > Oct 20 05:12:17 MSK 2017 > > > > > > bsam@builder.bsnet:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/PKG64X amd64 amd64 > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > The only difference at kernel configs is a colored console. :-) > > > > > > > > > > > > And here I get some weird (is it?) result at the VM (I expect ntpd > > > > > > to be > > > > > > more stable): > > > > > > --- > > > > > > bhyve-vm% for t in `jot 10`; do ntpq -pn; sleep 64; done > > > > > > remote refid st t when poll reach delay > > > > > > offset > > > > > > jitter > > > > > > == > > > > > > XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u9 6430.605 > > > > > > -1.202 > > > > > > 316.407 > > > > > > XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u7 6470.605 > > > > > > -1.202 > > > > > > 358.395 > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u5 64 170.615 > > > > > > -328.42 > > > > > > 181.405 > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u3 64 370.615 > > > > > > -328.42 > > > > > > 214.868 > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 67 64 370.615 > > > > > > -328.42 > > > > > > 214.868 > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 63 64 770.615 > > > > > > -328.42 > > > > > > 268.618 > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 60 64 1770.615 > > > > > > -328.42 > > > > > > 333.175 > > > > > > XX.XX.XX.1 .STEP. 16 u 1910 6400.000 > > > > > > 0.000 > > > > > > 0.000 > > > > > > XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 27 6410.703 > > > > > > -262.63 > > > > > > 0.004 > > > > > > XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 31 6410.649 > > > > > > -331.43 > > > > > > 68.800 > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > At the same time host's results are very stable: > > > > > > --- > > > > > > bhyve-host% for t in `jot 10`; do ntpq -pn; sleep 64; done > > > > > > remote refid st t when poll reach delay > > > > > > offset > > > > > > jitter > > > > > > == > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u1 6410.401 > > > > > > 0.176 > > > > > > 0.106 > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u6 6430.401 > > > > > > 0.176 > > > > > > 0.459 > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u3 6470.401 > > > > > > 0.176 > > > > > > 0.940 > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 67 6470.401 > > > > > > 0.176 > > > > > > 0.940 > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 64 64 170.401 > > > > > > 0.176 > > > > > > 1.566 > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 60 64 370.448 > > > > > > 1.275 > > > > > > 1.739 > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 55 64 770.448 > > > > > > 1.275 > > > > > > 2.365 > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 53 64 1770.448 > > > > > > 1.275 > > > > > > 3.110 > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 50 64 3770.448 > > > > > > 1.275 > > > > > > 3.929 > > > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 45 64 3770.443 > > > > > > 8.750 > > > > > > 4.722 > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > > > The network is organized via bridge -- host igb and vm tap > > > > > > interfaces > > > > > > are members of one bridge. > > > > > > > > > > > > Are those results expected? Does it smell like a bug? Should I dig > > > > > > furter? > > > > > > > > > > > So it is repeatedly stepping the clock in the VM? (Set > > > > > kern.timecounter.stepwarnings=1 to log steps). > > > > No kernel/ntpd messages for 20 minutes after setting this sysctl. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is usually a sign > > > > > that the chosen timecounter is running at a different frequency than > > > > > it > > > > > claimed to be when it registered
Re: host, bhyve vm and ntpd
(CC to freebsd-virtualization@) 20.10.2017 19:32, Ian Lepore пишет: > On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 18:36 +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: >> 20.10.2017 18:31, Boris Samorodov пишет: >>> >>> 20.10.2017 18:12, Ian Lepore пишет: On Fri, 2017-10-20 at 14:46 +0300, Boris Samorodov wrote: > > Hi All, > > I have got a host: > --- > bhyve-host% uname -a > FreeBSD sm.bsnet 12.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT #3 r322868: Fri Aug > 25 05:25:26 MSK 2017 > bsam@builder.bsnet:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/GENERIC-FAST amd64 amd64 > --- > > And a bhyve vm: > --- > bhyve-vm: uname -a > FreeBSD builder.bsnet 12.0-CURRENT FreeBSD 12.0-CURRENT #58 r324782: Fri > Oct 20 05:12:17 MSK 2017 > bsam@builder.bsnet:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/PKG64X amd64 amd64 > --- > > The only difference at kernel configs is a colored console. :-) > > And here I get some weird (is it?) result at the VM (I expect ntpd to be > more stable): > --- > bhyve-vm% for t in `jot 10`; do ntpq -pn; sleep 64; done > remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset > jitter > == > XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u9 6430.605 -1.202 > 316.407 > XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u7 6470.605 -1.202 > 358.395 > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u5 64 170.615 -328.42 > 181.405 > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u3 64 370.615 -328.42 > 214.868 > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 67 64 370.615 -328.42 > 214.868 > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 63 64 770.615 -328.42 > 268.618 > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 60 64 1770.615 -328.42 > 333.175 > XX.XX.XX.1 .STEP. 16 u 1910 6400.0000.000 > 0.000 > XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 27 6410.703 -262.63 > 0.004 > XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 31 6410.649 -331.43 > 68.800 > --- > > At the same time host's results are very stable: > --- > bhyve-host% for t in `jot 10`; do ntpq -pn; sleep 64; done > remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset > jitter > == > > > > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u1 6410.4010.176 > 0.106 > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u6 6430.4010.176 > 0.459 > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u3 6470.4010.176 > 0.940 > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 67 6470.4010.176 > 0.940 > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 64 64 170.4010.176 > 1.566 > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 60 64 370.4481.275 > 1.739 > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 55 64 770.4481.275 > 2.365 > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 53 64 1770.4481.275 > 3.110 > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 50 64 3770.4481.275 > 3.929 > *XX.XX.XX.1 XX.XX.XX.245 4 u 45 64 3770.4438.750 > 4.722 > --- > > The network is organized via bridge -- host igb and vm tap interfaces > are members of one bridge. > > Are those results expected? Does it smell like a bug? Should I dig > furter? > So it is repeatedly stepping the clock in the VM? (Set kern.timecounter.stepwarnings=1 to log steps). >>> No kernel/ntpd messages for 20 minutes after setting this sysctl. >>> That is usually a sign that the chosen timecounter is running at a different frequency than it claimed to be when it registered itself -- the host may not be emulating the timer hardware properly in the guest. What is the output of sysctl kern.timecounter in the vm? >>> --- >>> bhyve-vm% sysctl kern.timecounter >>> >>> kern.timecounter.tsc_shift: 1 >>> kern.timecounter.smp_tsc_adjust: 0 >>> kern.timecounter.smp_tsc: 0 >>> kern.timecounter.invariant_tsc: 1 >>> kern.timecounter.fast_gettime: 1 >>> kern.timecounter.tick: 1 >>> kern.timecounter.choice: ACPI-fast(900) HPET(950) i8254(0) TSC-low(-100) >>> dummy(-100) >>> kern.timecounter.hardware: HPET >>> kern.timecounter.alloweddeviation: 5 >>> kern.timecounter.stepwarnings: 1 >>> kern.timecounter.tc.ACPI-fast.quality: 900 >>> kern.timecounter.tc.ACPI-fast.frequency: 3579545 >>> kern.timecounter.tc.ACPI-fast.counter: 4161213491 >>> kern.timecounter.tc.ACPI-fast.mask: 4294967295 >>> kern.timecounter.tc.HPET.quality: 950 >>> kern.timecounter.tc.HPET.frequency: 1000 >>> kern.timecounter.tc.HPET.counter: 3518036865 >>> kern.timecounter.tc.HPET.mask: 4294967295 >>> kern.timecounter.tc.i8254.quality: 0 >>>
