On 09/02/2013 02:33 PM, David Lord wrote: > Harlan Stenn wrote: >> David Lord writes: >>> Magnus Danielson wrote: >>>> server ntp1.kth.se iburst maxpoll 7 >>>> server ntp2.kth.se iburst maxpoll 7 >>>> server ntp3.kth.se iburst maxpoll 7 >>>> server ntp1.sp.se iburst maxpoll 7 >>>> server ntp2.sp.se iburst maxpoll 7 >>> that seems too restrictive and possibly abusive if you do not >>> yourself have control over those servers. >> >> iburst is not abusive. >> >> Perhaps you are thinking of burst? > > I was thinking about maxpoll 7 and the few stats that were > given indicating the very poor reach for the configured > servers. There is good network connectivity to all 5 servers.
If you advice us not to use maxpoll 7, then we naturally will learn from it. I don't use it personally, but I didn't set this machine up. Would be nice to hear your explanation thought. However, when doing the ntpdc peers command (in interactive mode), it had all 5 servers available, and was tracking one (as indicated with = and * at the beginning of the lines, I was told this over phone, so I don't have visual memory of it all). So, I don't think bad connectivity was the cause. It looked to a non-NTP expert like it had peers, was happy with offsets (albeit it looked unexpectedly good at 0) but just was plain way off in time. It took multiples querries with ntpdc peers before it reacted on the time-offset, started to display big offsets and eventually clean up itself. ntpdate -q did expose the time error of 6 days. Cheers, Magnus _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
