Mike K Smith wrote: > On 2 June, 14:31, Brian Utterback <[email protected]> wrote: >> David Woolley wrote: >>> [email protected] wrote: >>>> In the case below, will server 3 be treated as a falseticker because >>>> its offset lies outside the dispersion interval of the other two >>>> servers even though there is some intersection between its dispersion >>>> and that of server 2. >>> That's basically why I won't be convinced by the four server argument >>> until I've checked the actual code. I seem to remember that there is an >>> additional constraint, namely that the actual measurement must fall >>> within the intersection. >>>> 1 >>>> |--------+--------| >>>> 2 >>>> |----------+----------| >>>> 3 |------------+------------| >> It's the other way around. The interval is expanded to include the >> mid-points. So, even though the overlap between server 2 and 3 is that >> small section, the interval actually used must include their >> mid-points (i.e. their offsets) so the interval used in the downstream >> calculations is the offset of server 2 through the offset of server 3 > > So the downstream servers reject server 1 as a falseticker as its > offset falls outside that interval? > They are then unable to select either of server 2 or server 3 as the > synchronisation peer since the offset of each is at the extreme end of > the intersection interval? > >
Perhaps there are good reasons for configuring five or seven servers? A case for maintaining your very own atomic clock? Or both? _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
