David, I'm not sure which configuration you are considering; the documentation clearly shows, even in the diagrams, that there can be more than one orphan server and more than one orphan client. The expressed intent is that, should all sources of time be lost, that onlyu all orphan clients select the same orphan server. It's as simple as that.
Orphan mode was motivated by certain misguided configurations that tried to engineer failover configurations using engineered local clock stratum assignments. These are dangerous, fragile and will form loops unless specifically and carefully done. Usually under some failure scenario or other a cycle forms between two local clocks and in the best Bellman-Ford tradition, they count to infinity. Orphan mode was specifically designed for the most common case where a LAN has multiple Internet servers and where one or more of them can become disconnected. The (single) orphan server becoms the source of last resort. Dave David Woolley wrote: > Steve Kostecke wrote: > >> >> Nonsense. >> >> A single ntpd can be configured in Orphan Mode to serve as the "server" >> for a time island. > > > I hadn't considered the degenerate case. However, if one looks at the > key selling points for orphan mode, in the documentaion, one finds that > they all depend on having multiple orphans at the same stratum: > >> There are many disadvantages using the local clock driver: multiple >> source redundancy is not possible and the subnet is vulnerable to >> single-point failures. Orphan mode is intended to replace the need for > > > If it really has benefits in contexts where there is only one orphan > mode server, the documentation needs amending to mention them. > > Note two orphans at the same stratum aren't possible here, as the > requirement included a strict precedence and two at different strata is > another degenerate case. > _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
