On 2012-07-24, bhargav p <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Thanks for reply. > > I am confused with what is a leaf node and non-leaf node.
A leaf sits at the end of a branch. I presume it is a node on which nothing else depends. Ie, no other machine uses it as a server. > >>>>>It sounds to me that you have effectively removed the local clock > entirely. The local clock needs to be treated as a refclock, so that time > served remains valid indefinitely. On modern ntpd's, even without orphan > mode or local clock drivers, a non-leaf node will continue to serve time > long after its sources have gone away. However the root distance will > increase until its clients decide it is too great > > I have not removed local clock. I just removed the check, still my local > address configuration is preset in my conf file. > And why have you not removed the local clock. It is idiotic to use it as a refclock, especially if your computer is not being used as a server by a whole bunch of other machines. It does nothing but confuse everything. Remove it! > In why earlier versions of ntpd this flag check is not there? > > > > > On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:11 AM, David Woolley < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> bhargav p wrote: >> >> >>> Coming to actual problem in my scenario, In my conf file i have configured >>> one server address and local[127.127.1.0] address. As for each peer we are >>> >> >> Why have you done this? First of all, leaf nodes should never have the >> local clock pseudo driver defined. Secondly, with modern versions of ntpd, >> the only real reason to use one on a non-leaf noed is if you are using a >> timing source outside of ntpd, in which case the local clock driver will be >> the only server defined. >> >> When you want the whole network to coast together, you should use orphan >> mode. >> >> If you must use the local clock as a fallback, I would advise defining >> enough real servers to safely outvote it, and setting the clock to within a >> second or so, before starting ntpd. >> >> >> setting that flag , when I changed the date and trying to set it " ntpd -q >>> " command , when the first NTP packet is received, for the local address >>> hash iteration this condition[(!(peer->flags & FLAG_REFCLOCK] is failing >>> and returning as fit and trying to synchronize with local server and >>> printing the log "slew +0.0000000sec".. and all NTP packet exchange is >>> stopped after first pair exchange. >>> >> >> Yes, that's the sort of problem you get from inappropriate use of that >> driver. >> >> >> >>> >>> If I remove this check [(!(peer->flags & FLAG_REFCLOCK] in peer_unfit >>> function, then everything is fine.Time has been reset to the server value. >>> >> >> It sounds to me that you have effectively removed the local clock >> entirely. The local clock needs to be treated as a refclock, so that time >> served remains valid indefinitely. On modern ntpd's, even without orphan >> mode or local clock drivers, a non-leaf node will continue to serve time >> long after its sources have gone away. However the root distance will >> increase until its clients decide it is too great. >> >> >>> I am not sure why this flag check is required? >>> >>> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> questions mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/**questions<http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions> >> > > > _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
