Skip to content

Adds collection and display of chronyc serverstats output to the generated HTML report.#2

Open
trcjr wants to merge 1 commit into
TheHuman00:masterfrom
trcjr:feature/chronyc-serverstats
Open

Adds collection and display of chronyc serverstats output to the generated HTML report.#2
trcjr wants to merge 1 commit into
TheHuman00:masterfrom
trcjr:feature/chronyc-serverstats

Conversation

@trcjr

@trcjr trcjr commented Jan 14, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

This adds serverstats collection and rendering alongside existing chrony diagnostics, improving troubleshooting and observability without changing runtime behavior.

@TheHuman00 TheHuman00 added the enhancement New feature or request label Apr 14, 2026
@TheHuman00 TheHuman00 requested a review from Copilot April 15, 2026 14:43

This comment was marked as spam.

@TheHuman00

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Owner

Thanks again for this PR really appreciate the contribution 👍

I took a closer look at what serverstats adds in practice. For example, here’s a typical output:

NTP packets received       : 3369642868
NTP packets dropped        : 0
Command packets received   : 88568
Command packets dropped    : 0
Client log records dropped : 2345527641
NTS-KE connections accepted: 4209
NTS-KE connections dropped : 0
Authenticated NTP packets  : 29
Interleaved NTP packets    : 2186556
######  This part is already in the graph chrony_serverstats

NTP timestamps held        : 4096
NTP timestamp span         : 1752
NTP daemon RX timestamps   : 0
NTP daemon TX timestamps   : 3367269691
NTP kernel RX timestamps   : 3369456195
NTP kernel TX timestamps   : 2186504
NTP hardware RX timestamps : 0
NTP hardware TX timestamps : 0

For the second part, I’m totally fine with adding it. But I’m wondering if it wouldn’t make more sense to just include this second section of the output instead of the whole thing.

Do you think this part is the one that actually brings meaningful information for users?

If yes, then we can think about how best to integrate it, whether it should be enabled by default or kept optional (by the config part above the script) ?

Let me know what you think 🙂

@TheHuman00 TheHuman00 added Wait for reply and removed enhancement New feature or request labels May 26, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants