NTP and Windows Vista - NTP

This is a discussion on NTP and Windows Vista - NTP ; Folks, Has anyone made any progress with taming NTP on Windows Vista yet? I have this version basically running: ntpd 4.2.4p3@1.1502-foehr-o Jul 25 12:53:15 (UTC+02:00) 2007 (7) but the timekeeping is nothing like as good as on XP or Windows ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: NTP and Windows Vista

  1. NTP and Windows Vista

    Folks,

    Has anyone made any progress with taming NTP on Windows Vista yet? I have
    this version basically running:

    ntpd 4.2.4p3@1.1502-foehr-o Jul 25 12:53:15 (UTC+02:00) 2007 (7)

    but the timekeeping is nothing like as good as on XP or Windows 2000.
    Compare PC Gemini with the others here:

    http://www.satsignal.eu/mrtg/daily_ntp.html

    One thing I did note, and should have checked earlier, was that the
    W32Time service was still running, and of course it should not be.
    Perhaps the Meinberg installer didn't have enough rights to disable it, as
    I requested? Anyway, I have now disabled it (at 0500 UTC on Tuesday May
    27) and confirmed that it's not running, but the timekeeping seems just as
    bad:

    http://www.satsignal.eu/mrtg/gemini_ntp.html

    The periodic nature of the offset almost suggests to me some sort of beat
    frequency - as if two things were trying to control the clock. With
    Process Explorer, NTPD is running at High priority (13). It would be
    great to put "Vista" as another OS where NTP works.

    Thanks,
    David



  2. Re: NTP and Windows Vista

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Folks,
    >
    > Has anyone made any progress with taming NTP on Windows Vista yet? I have
    > this version basically running:
    >
    > ntpd 4.2.4p3@1.1502-foehr-o Jul 25 12:53:15 (UTC+02:00) 2007 (7)
    >
    > but the timekeeping is nothing like as good as on XP or Windows 2000.
    > Compare PC Gemini with the others here:
    >
    > http://www.satsignal.eu/mrtg/daily_ntp.html
    >
    > One thing I did note, and should have checked earlier, was that the
    > W32Time service was still running, and of course it should not be.
    > Perhaps the Meinberg installer didn't have enough rights to disable it, as
    > I requested? Anyway, I have now disabled it (at 0500 UTC on Tuesday May
    > 27) and confirmed that it's not running, but the timekeeping seems just as
    > bad:
    >
    > http://www.satsignal.eu/mrtg/gemini_ntp.html
    >
    > The periodic nature of the offset almost suggests to me some sort of beat
    > frequency - as if two things were trying to control the clock. With
    > Process Explorer, NTPD is running at High priority (13). It would be
    > great to put "Vista" as another OS where NTP works.


    Please enter a bug item so that we can track this issue even if we
    ultimately decide that there's nothing we can do or that it's operator
    error.

    Danny

  3. Re: NTP and Windows Vista

    Danny Mayer wrote:
    []
    > Please enter a bug item so that we can track this issue even if we
    > ultimately decide that there's nothing we can do or that it's operator
    > error.
    >
    > Danny


    Bug 1030 Submitted. It may need some editing, as the OS (Vista) isn't yet
    in the drop-down list.

    Cheers,
    David



  4. Re: NTP and Windows Vista

    On 2008-05-31, David J Taylor wrote:

    > Bug 1030 Submitted. It may need some editing, as the OS (Vista) isn't
    > yet in the drop-down list.


    Windows Vista is now available in the OS list.

    --
    Steve Kostecke
    NTP Public Services Project - http://support.ntp.org/

  5. Re: NTP and Windows Vista

    Steve Kostecke wrote:
    > On 2008-05-31, David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> Bug 1030 Submitted. It may need some editing, as the OS (Vista) isn't
    >> yet in the drop-down list.

    >
    > Windows Vista is now available in the OS list.


    Thanks, Steve.

    David



  6. Re: NTP and Windows Vista

    Steve Kostecke wrote:
    > On 2008-05-31, David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> Bug 1030 Submitted. It may need some editing, as the OS (Vista) isn't
    >> yet in the drop-down list.

    >
    > Windows Vista is now available in the OS list.
    >


    I'm not really sure that we need separate names for Windows. We don't
    differentiate between different versions of Linux or FreeBSD ans Vista
    is just another version like XP and 2000. It really falls into the
    version information.

    Danny

  7. Re: NTP and Windows Vista

    Danny Mayer wrote:
    > Steve Kostecke wrote:
    >> On 2008-05-31, David J Taylor wrote:
    >>
    >>> Bug 1030 Submitted. It may need some editing, as the OS (Vista)
    >>> isn't yet in the drop-down list.

    >>
    >> Windows Vista is now available in the OS list.
    >>

    >
    > I'm not really sure that we need separate names for Windows. We don't
    > differentiate between different versions of Linux or FreeBSD ans Vista
    > is just another version like XP and 2000. It really falls into the
    > version information.
    >
    > Danny


    Danny,

    There is certainly need to be able to record the version of the operating
    system which is use, whether that be in a drop-down list or elsewhere I
    don't mind. Windows 3.X and the NT/2000/XP/Vista set, for example, are
    quite different. As many of the security settings have changed on Windows
    Vista, and these could affect how NTP works, I personally feel that it is
    appropriate to have Windows Vista set out separately from other versions.

    I don't see a field for OS sub-version on the bug report form right now.
    It could be helpful if there were another field for OS sub-version which
    would allow the user to enter "Home", "Business" etc. (for Vista) should
    they wish, although in this particular case the sub-version seems unlikely
    to affect how NTP works.

    Doesn't Linux need something similar for version numbers, in view of how
    kernel changes may interact with NTP?

    Cheers,
    David



  8. Re: NTP and Windows Vista

    David J Taylor wrote:
    > Danny,
    >
    > There is certainly need to be able to record the version of the operating
    > system which is use, whether that be in a drop-down list or elsewhere I
    > don't mind. Windows 3.X and the NT/2000/XP/Vista set, for example, are
    > quite different.


    Window 3.x, 95, 98, etc. haven't been supported by NTP for quite a few
    years so any bug report about them would be invalid anyway. The others,
    based on NT are what we support but are merely different versions of the
    Windows NT operating system.

    > As many of the security settings have changed on Windows
    > Vista, and these could affect how NTP works, I personally feel that it is
    > appropriate to have Windows Vista set out separately from other versions.
    >


    Security settings are not relevant to NTP. Those are things you need to
    deal with separately. Those are operator errors and not NTP errors.

    > I don't see a field for OS sub-version on the bug report form right now.
    > It could be helpful if there were another field for OS sub-version which
    > would allow the user to enter "Home", "Business" etc. (for Vista) should
    > they wish, although in this particular case the sub-version seems unlikely
    > to affect how NTP works.
    >


    That doesn't matter either since they are just subsets of the operating
    system. The pieces that NTP uses are basically the IP stack, the IO to
    disk and network and a few other odds and ends. You can enter that
    information if it's really relevant but I'd be astonished if it was
    something the NTP needed to deal with.

    > Doesn't Linux need something similar for version numbers, in view of how
    > kernel changes may interact with NTP?
    >


    Yes and those version numbers can be important in the bug report but
    it's still Linux.

    Danny

  9. Re: NTP and Windows Vista

    Danny Mayer wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >> Danny,
    >>
    >> There is certainly need to be able to record the version of the
    >> operating system which is use, whether that be in a drop-down list
    >> or elsewhere I don't mind. Windows 3.X and the NT/2000/XP/Vista
    >> set, for example, are quite different.

    >
    > Window 3.x, 95, 98, etc. haven't been supported by NTP for quite a few
    > years so any bug report about them would be invalid anyway. The
    > others, based on NT are what we support but are merely different
    > versions of the Windows NT operating system.
    >
    >> As many of the security settings have changed on Windows
    >> Vista, and these could affect how NTP works, I personally feel that
    >> it is appropriate to have Windows Vista set out separately from
    >> other versions.

    >
    > Security settings are not relevant to NTP. Those are things you need
    > to deal with separately. Those are operator errors and not NTP errors.

    []
    > Danny


    Thanks for your comments, Danny. Perhaps, if 16-bit Windows is no longer
    supported for bug reports, the relevant entires should be removed from the
    drop-down list?

    Security settings on directories have stopped NTP working for me in the
    past under Windows XP, so I would argue they do matter, and that reporting
    which version of 32-bit Windows is in use matters. For example, with
    Windows Vista significant restrictions now enforced about programs writing
    any files in the C:\Program Files\ tree.

    Cheers,
    David



  10. Re: NTP and Windows Vista

    Danny Mayer wrote:
    > David J Taylor wrote:
    >> Danny,
    >>
    >> There is certainly need to be able to record the version of the operat

    ing
    >> system which is use, whether that be in a drop-down list or elsewhere

    I
    >> don't mind. Windows 3.X and the NT/2000/XP/Vista set, for example, ar

    e
    >> quite different.

    >
    > Window 3.x, 95, 98, etc. haven't been supported by NTP for quite a few


    > years so any bug report about them would be invalid anyway. The others,


    > based on NT are what we support but are merely different versions of th

    e
    > Windows NT operating system.
    >
    >> As many of the security settings have changed on Windows
    >> Vista, and these could affect how NTP works, I personally feel that it

    is
    >> appropriate to have Windows Vista set out separately from other versio

    ns.
    >>

    >
    > Security settings are not relevant to NTP. Those are things you need to


    > deal with separately. Those are operator errors and not NTP errors.
    >


    Unless of course we are talking about security-settings done by an
    installer. Most of the UAC problems are actually file-permission errors,

    and since windows32 programmers are "used to" administrative privileges,

    they don't bother setting up proper ACLs on the files the app/service
    needs to access. For instance, ntpd would need read+execute permissions
    on its own files, but would need write+change on the drift file, to be
    able to properly run as a non-privileged user. If registry ACLs are
    handled properly aswell (right for the ntpd user to actually adjust
    system time), we are getting close.

    Windows Vista (with UAC enabled) is quite different from most other
    windows'es in this manner.

    >> I don't see a field for OS sub-version on the bug report form right no

    w.
    >> It could be helpful if there were another field for OS sub-version whi

    ch
    >> would allow the user to enter "Home", "Business" etc. (for Vista) shou

    ld
    >> they wish, although in this particular case the sub-version seems unli

    kely
    >> to affect how NTP works.
    >>

    >
    > That doesn't matter either since they are just subsets of the operating


    > system. The pieces that NTP uses are basically the IP stack, the IO to


    > disk and network and a few other odds and ends. You can enter that
    > information if it's really relevant but I'd be astonished if it was
    > something the NTP needed to deal with.


    I'm not 100% sure this applies to Vista, but if memory serves me,
    previous windows versions had limitations on the number of open, and
    half-open connections that were allowed, and those limits were different

    in the different subsets of windows. Thus, getting the "entire" version
    of window matters, more so than it does for FreeBSD or Linux, since
    those synthetic limitations are non-existent there.

    >> Doesn't Linux need something similar for version numbers, in view of h

    ow
    >> kernel changes may interact with NTP?
    >>

    >
    > Yes and those version numbers can be important in the bug report but
    > it's still Linux.


    To reiterate my own statement, Windows introduces some synthetic
    limitations on different "breeds" (editions) of the OS. Linux doesn't.

    //Svein

    --
    Svein Skogen | svein@d80.iso100.no
    Solberg ěstli 9 | PGP Key: 0xE5E76831
    2020 Skedsmokorset | svein@jernhuset.no
    Norway | PGP Key: 0xCE96CE13
    ------------------------+-----------------------------
    msn messenger: | Mobile Phone: +47 907 03 575
    svein@jernhuset.no | RIPE handle: SS16503-RIPE


    _______________________________________________
    questions mailing list
    questions@lists.ntp.org
    https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions

    --- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
    multipart/mixed
    multipart/signed
    text/plain (text body -- kept)
    application/pgp-signature
    text/plain (text body -- kept)
    ---

  11. Re: NTP and Windows Vista

    On 2008-06-02, David J Taylor wrote:

    > Perhaps, if 16-bit Windows is no longer supported for bug reports, the
    > relevant entires should be removed from the drop-down list?


    That drop-down list does not exist in a vacuum. It is, in fact,
    intimately linked with the bugs database.

    This particular point of discussion is pointless.

    --
    Steve Kostecke
    NTP Public Services Project - http://support.ntp.org/

  12. Re: NTP and Windows Vista

    Steve Kostecke wrote:
    > On 2008-06-02, David J Taylor wrote:
    >
    >> Perhaps, if 16-bit Windows is no longer supported for bug reports,
    >> the relevant entires should be removed from the drop-down list?

    >
    > That drop-down list does not exist in a vacuum. It is, in fact,
    > intimately linked with the bugs database.
    >
    > This particular point of discussion is pointless.


    Thanks, Steve. I wasn't aware of the link - it might have been just a
    text field.

    Cheers,
    David



+ Reply to Thread