On 2015-02-21, Rob <[email protected]> wrote: > Roger <[email protected]> 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. >
Why should it not continue to poll it? It should be pruned as a bad ticker by the ntpd algorihm, and thus not affect the clock discipline. But that offset might be just a temporary abberation and that source come back on sync in a few hours or days. Why throw it away. And as has been mentioned, apparently the pool servers are monitored and if a source is persistantly bad, it will be removed from the pool. Ie, what is the harm in continuing to poll it? _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
