David L. Mills wrote: > > I'm not sure which configuration you are considering; the documentation > clearly shows, even in the diagrams, that there can be more than one
Steve, rather than I, was proposing a configuration in which there was one orphan mode server and one normal client. I have no problem with the use of orphan mode with multiple servers at the same orphan level. > 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 Steve was talking about engineering a failover precedence arrangement by engineering the orphan strata to all be different. > 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. I'm not sure if you mean single in a static or dynamic s sense. The documentation indicates benefits when it is a dynamic sense, but doesn't seem to indicate any real difference from the local clock solution when there is never more than one candidate. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
