[systemd-devel] timesyncd log messages galore

[Ede Wolf]

The situation turns out to be a little different, the log messages are 
somewhat misleading.

First, my ra intervals were indeed set to high, thanks for the heads up, 
after some testing I forgot to set them back. Should have paid more 
attention way back. But those where not directly the cause.

The messages get written, if the ntp server does not respond and a ra is 
received.

Once the initial synchronisation has been done, they do not reapper, no 
matter how many ra are being subsequently received on that link.

Still not convinced, that behaviour is really helpful, as a received ra 
is not a changed network configuration (can be, but rather seldom for a 
given host) and a message, that the remote ntpd is not usable would be 
way more appropiate, but there we are.

My ntpd had an open port, but that was not usable. netcat worked, but a 
later installed ntpdate reported no suitable servers where found.
Makes me wonder, wether timedatectl could have been used as well?

Once the ntp issue had been fixed, the log messages vanished.

Just as a reference for future generations


Am 11.02.21 um 17:22 schrieb Mantas Mikulėnas:
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2021 at 6:07 PM Ede Wolf <listac at nebelschwaden.de 
> <mailto:listac at nebelschwaden.de>> wrote:
> 
>     Thanks. Indeed, stopping radvd made these messages stop appearing.
>     Now I am no IPv6 guru, but having routeradvertisments is not too
>     uncommon, to the best of my knowledge.
> 
> 
> RAs shouldn't be extremely frequent. An hour is a common interval for 
> periodic RAs -- certainly not minutes or seconds.
> 
> OTOH, I am not seeing any such messages on any of my IPv6 hosts using 
> timesyncd. There is a burst of "network changed" messages on boot, 
> presumably in response to bridges and tunnels being set up, but the 
> daemon stays quiet afterwards. Currently it has recorded 1.988s total 
> CPU usage after 12 days of uptime.
> 
> 
>     So the punchline is, that timesynd is not really usable with ipv6
>     networks? Am I getting that correct?
> 
> 
> No, sounds more like it's just not really usable with *your* IPv6 network.
> 
> -- 
> Mantas Mikulėnas