On 2010-11-09, David Woolley <[email protected]> wrote: > unruh wrote: > >> If I recall correctly his problem was that he had 4 outside sources plus >> the local time. Then something disconnected him from those outside >> sources for a long time ( hours) After that was fixed, the system never >> again went back to those outside sources-- gave zero reachability even >> after they were reconnected, as if ntpd gave up on them after it could >> not reach them for a while. >> > > It had fallen back to a 1024 second poll interval, so it might be as > simple as he failed to wait until a successful poll was made. He was > possibly expecting it to find the servers within tens of seconds.
That is possible. Only he can tell us how long he waited. > > One could possibly argue that a response from another server, after > the > local clock became selected, ought to force the poll interval down. I think that ntp degrades the poll interval if there is not response, to prevent the situation where ntpd suddenly floods a server that has gone down. I think it used to decrease the poll interval which resulted in a server coming up being bombarded by thousands of ntp requests/sec, because everyone had decreased their poll interval. > > I don't know if ntpd handles the poll interval differently when there is > a local clock selected as against when there is no source, but it should > probably not. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
