"Harlan Stenn" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... [...] > I'm thinking we want to be pretty careful about when we'd recommend a > local refclock, as it seems much better to recommend orphan mode as > that seems to be a much better solution for a wider number of folks. > > What do others think?
That orphan mode is inherently symmetrical, and a single master with a local clock backup is inherently asymmetrical. That the configuration of the larger group is simpler in the latter case. That I've been clinging to those as a barely honourable defence of the local clock for this thread's original scenario of a gateway server to a herd of sheep. The asymmetry may also be served by not including the gateway as an orphan but only as server to them all. I don't usually worry very much about the remaining single point of failure, or the possibility of that point being unsuitable as a holdover server. After running successfully for awhile, _all_ nodes should be stabilised fairly well. Groetjes, Maarten Wiltink _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
