On 08/15/2013 07:55 AM, David Taylor wrote: > On 14/08/2013 22:07, Harlan Stenn wrote: >> David Malone writes: >>> Indeed - you need to have a timestamp within about ten years of >>> correct before you start up, otherwise the problem will be worse. Ntp >>> has the same problem in figuring out the ntp epoch, though we've yet >>> to see an ntp timestamp wrap around. >> >> ntp-dev has a fix for this problem - while the original solution was >> "make sure the clock is correct to within ~65 years' time" the new code >> uses a "date of compile" value, and needs the system time to be either >> 10 years' before that date or up to 128 years' after that date. >> >> See http://bugs.ntp.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1995 for more information >> (thanks, Juergen!). >> >> H > > If you make that 9.5 years rather than 10 it might then cover the > 500-week period mentioned by Magnus. I do not mention a 500 week period. I mention a 1024 week period with various phases, 500, 512 and obviously 729 (wrapped this Sunday as we went into week 1753). > > Judging by some reports here, people may be using NTP more than 10 > years old. Does this fix cause a problem in that case? Not really. This problem is "common mode" to recent and 10 year old NTPs.
Cheers, Magnus _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions