Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

perfsonar-user - Re: [perfsonar-user] Clock stability on VM

Subject: perfSONAR User Q&A and Other Discussion

List archive

Re: [perfsonar-user] Clock stability on VM


Chronological Thread 
  • From: Mark Feit <>
  • To: Purna Mididuddi <>, "" <>
  • Subject: Re: [perfsonar-user] Clock stability on VM
  • Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2016 23:04:57 +0000
  • Accept-language: en-US
  • Authentication-results: Brocade.com; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;Brocade.com; dmarc=none action=none header.from=internet2.edu;
  • Ironport-phdr: 9a23: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
  • Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:0

Purna Mididuddi writes:
>
> In the output I sent before, the offset for bare-metal is also drifting by
> about 15ms…

The offset is NTPD’s estimate of the difference between the local and
reference clocks. Network conditions will affect this figure, and it will
change more frequently when sync is being acquired and the server is being
polled more often. 10 ms in either direction isn’t anything to worry about.

> Is this acceptable in general, for different type of perfsonar tests?

Yes: Measuring round-trip time or throughput accurately (or as accurately
as you can on a general-purpose computer) depends more on the stability of
the clock in the system and less on knowing exactly what time it is. If you
send a packet, look at the clock, wait to receive a reply and look at the
clock again, all you care about is whether the difference between the two
time checks is correct, not whether the absolute time on the clock is
accurate. The same goes for figuring throughput over an interval.

Yes, but…: Latency is a different matter because there are two clocks
involved. If I look at my clock, send a packet to you and you look at your
clock when it shows up, the best we can do to figure the time difference
without knowing how much of that difference is a result of a difference in
our clocks. Knowing that requires a high-accuracy reference in both places,
and if you have one of those, there’s no need to use the clocks in the
computers. The 1 ms you get out of NTP over the Internet means that any
measurement you take where the topological distance between the hosts is less
than about 100 miles isn’t likely to be accurate, and it’s possible that the
receiving end could report that the test packets arrived before they
departed. Over longer distances, the difference is just error, and more
distance dilutes the error.

> Note that this is to a stratum 1 server.

Even so, it’s across a network where every packet can take a different path
and every hop introduces unpredictable latency. Better NTP accuracy requires
a good clock (GPS, CDMA, etc.) at the server end and stable latency.

--Mark





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.19.

Top of Page