Roger wrote:
On 21 Feb 2015 10:52:40 GMT, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
Roger <[email protected]> wrote:
On 21 Feb 2015 07:54:50 GMT, Rob <[email protected]> wrote:
It looks like you have created your own problem.
What problem are you talking about?
Your problem to get enough good servers.
When did I say that?
I observed ntpd continuing to poll a server which was off by
100s of milliseconds. Are you saying that ntpd didn't drop the
server because of not enough good servers? A quick eyeball of
the relevant peerstats shows that ntpd was using at least six
good servers plus the one that went wild. Methinks you've come
to an opinion based on too little information.
I haven't checked the source code for quite a while, but the limit used
to be 10 servers, i.e. you needed more than 8 before it would try to
prune the list and replace the worst to get back to 10.
This limit is configurable, it might have been tweaked downwards.
Terje
--
- <Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no>
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
