Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > David Woolley wrote: >> Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >> >>> >>> Unless he introduced the error deliberately in order to "test" NTP. >>> >> >> If he did, it is a case of garbage in and ntpd is under no obligation >> to expeditiously correct for it. You can't evaluate the dynamic >> response of ntpd based on unreasonable stimuli. > > You don't need to dig too deeply in the archives to find cases of people > doing just that!
I'm very well aware that it is a very common way of "acceptance testing" ntpd for people who don't understand it. However, the correct response to such a large offset is to ignore it as long as possible, as, in real operation, if it doesn't represesnt a fault that needs fixing outside of ntpd, it represents a temporary network disturbance and the local clock time is still actually valid. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
