Please find the details inline :
Perhaps it would be best if you told us what you are trying to do, what
exactly is the event you are trying to trap?
Details: A small application which
Log the exact timestamp of when client sync with the server ( banking
on the rv 0 status word)
Log the exact timestamp of when the client lost the server (again
banking on the rv 0 status word)
so if it takes 6 to 8 minutes for RV command to give the correct status,
not sure about my simple application's accuracy
thanks,
Shyam
On Sun, Dec 13, 2015 at 5:30 PM, <questions-requ...@lists.ntp.org> wrote:
> Send questions mailing list submissions to
> questions@lists.ntp.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> questions-requ...@lists.ntp.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> questions-ow...@lists.ntp.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of questions digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Observation with ntp4.2.8@p4-request inputs (brian utterback)
> 2. Re: Observation with ntp4.2.8@p4-request inputs (Brian Inglis)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 10:29:23 -0500
> From: brian utterback <brian.utterb...@oracle.com>
> To: questions@lists.ntp.org
> Subject: Re: [ntp:questions] Observation with ntp4.2.8@p4-request
> inputs
> Message-ID: <566c3d53.8040...@oracle.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> Perhaps it would be best if you told us what you are trying to do, what
> exactly is the event you are trying to trap?
>
> On 12/12/2015 2:26 AM, Sowmya Manapragada wrote:
> > Thanks all for your comments, but if that's expected , I need to depend
> on
> > something other than the system / peer status words for trapping the
> > correct sequence of events?
> > what I mean is even when my server is not reachable and system status
> word
> > rv 0 = 0615 ..it means to the client (0 leap_none, 6- sync_ntp,1 event,
> > 5-clock_sync).. and only after 7 to 8 minutes rv 0 status changes and
> > gives the correct status that the "server peer" is unreachable, same with
> > the client associations status: only after 6 to 8 minutes client shows
> it
> > has lost the server peer ( not reachable) ..am I missing something here
> ?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Shyam
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Sowmya Manapragada <skoga...@gmail.com
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks all for your comments, but if that's expected , I need to depend
> on
> >> something other than the system / peer status words for trapping the
> >> correct sequence of events?
> >> what I mean is even when my server is not reachable and system status
> word
> >> rv 0 = 0615 ..it means to the client (0 leap_none, 6- sync_ntp,1 event,
> >> 5-clock_sync).. and only after 7 to 8 minutes rv 0 status changes and
> >> gives the correct status that the "server peer" is unreachable, same
> with
> >> the client associations status: only after 6 to 8 minutes client
> shows it
> >> has lost the server peer ( not reachable) ..am I missing something
> here ?
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> Shyam
> >>
> >> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 5:30 PM, <questions-requ...@lists.ntp.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Send questions mailing list submissions to
> >>> questions@lists.ntp.org
> >>>
> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> >>> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
> >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> >>> questions-requ...@lists.ntp.org
> >>>
> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at
> >>> questions-ow...@lists.ntp.org
> >>>
> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> >>> than "Re: Contents of questions digest..."
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Today's Topics:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Re: Observation with ntp4.2.8@p4-request inputs (brian
> utterback)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Message: 1
> >>> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:01:14 -0500
> >>> From: brian utterback <brian.utterb...@oracle.com>
> >>> To: elliott...@comcast.net, "'Sowmya Manapragada'"
> >>> <skoga...@gmail.com>, questions@lists.ntp.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [ntp:questions] Observation with ntp4.2.8@p4-request
> >>> inputs
> >>> Message-ID: <5669779a.7040...@oracle.com>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> >>>
> >>> Yes, that is the expected behavior.
> >>>
> >>> On 12/10/2015 6:55 AM, Charles Elliott wrote:
> >>>> FWIIW, I have seen a similar phenomenon, only with one server. If the
> >>> time
> >>>> server on my network stops dispensing time for some reason, the
> >>> computers on
> >>>> the LAN will still stay sync'ed to its last observation long after the
> >>> reach
> >>>> indicator goes to zero. Not sure if that is right.
> >>>>
> >>>> Charles Elliott
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: questions
> >>>> [mailto:questions-bounces+elliott.ch=comcast....@lists.ntp.org] On
> >>> Behalf Of
> >>>> Sowmya Manapragada
> >>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 10:26 PM
> >>>> To: questions@lists.ntp.org
> >>>> Subject: [ntp:questions] Observation with ntp4.2.8@p4-request inputs
> >>>>
> >>>> Hello All,
> >>>> Just wanted to check if what I am observing with4.2.8p4 is as expected
> >>> or I
> >>>> missed out something because I don't see this with older 4.2.8p2/p3 :I
> >>> have
> >>>> a client having 2 NTP servers (both servers in my LAN ), client makes
> >>> one as
> >>>> a peer ( to which it is currently synced) and other as a candidate;
> the
> >>> peer
> >>>> (server) goes down, my client at least waited 7 to 8 min to reject
> this
> >>> peer
> >>>> server and choose the available one... Checked in Mein berg monitor
> tool
> >>>> also and rv0 command ... The status word just don't show that client
> >>>> rejected server until 7 to 8 minutes... Wire shark correctly shows no
> >>>> packets exchanged between my clint and peer ( right from moment when
> >>> server
> >>>> which is down)..my client ntp.conf is standard with an iburst...
> >>>> Thanks in advance
> >>>> Shyam
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> questions mailing list
> >>>> questions@lists.ntp.org
> >>>> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> questions mailing list
> >>>> questions@lists.ntp.org
> >>>> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
> >>> --
> >>> Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
> >>> Brian Utterback | Principle Software Engineer
> >>> Phone: +1 6038973049 <tel:+1%206038973049>
> >>> Oracle Systems/RPE Solaris Network
> >>> 1 Oracle Dr. | Nashua, NH 03062
> >>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> All working systems eventually start to exhibit their own agenda
> >>>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to
> >>> developing practices and products that help protect the environment
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> Subject: Digest Footer
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> questions mailing list
> >>> questions@lists.ntp.org
> >>> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>>
> >>> End of questions Digest, Vol 134, Issue 7
> >>> *****************************************
> >>>
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > questions mailing list
> > questions@lists.ntp.org
> > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
>
> --
> Oracle <http://www.oracle.com>
> Brian Utterback | Principle Software Engineer
> Phone: +1 6038973049 <tel:+1%206038973049>
> Oracle Systems/RPE Solaris Network
> 1 Oracle Dr. | Nashua, NH 03062
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> All working systems eventually start to exhibit their own agenda
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Green Oracle <http://www.oracle.com/commitment> Oracle is committed to
> developing practices and products that help protect the environment
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2015 11:30:03 -0700
> From: Brian Inglis <brian.ing...@systematicsw.ab.ca>
> To: questions@lists.ntp.org
> Subject: Re: [ntp:questions] Observation with ntp4.2.8@p4-request
> inputs
> Message-ID: <566c67ab.3040...@systematicsw.ab.ca>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
>
> You also need to look at the peers billboard "ntpq -p" which may show
> status flag == " " or "x", blank refid, stratum == 16, when > poll,
> poll > normal (64 for t == u), reach < 377, stats all zero e.g.
>
> remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset
> jitter
>
> ==============================================================================
> *GPS_NMEA(4) .GPS. 0 l 12 16 377 0.000 0.005
> 0.011
> +nist-time-serve .ACTS. 1 u 53 64 257 52.443 3.899
> 1.267
> +nisttime.carson .ACTS. 1 u 20 64 377 51.445 -0.157
> 2.371
> -india.colorado. .NIST. 1 u 2 64 357 79.852 8.229
> 0.862
> utcnist2.colora 16 u 415 128 0 79.289 7.956
> 0.000
> -SUE.CC.UREGINA. 142.3.100.2 2 u 19 64 135 36.057 0.306
> 0.479
> -136.159.2.4 136.159.2.251 2 u 102 64 346 11.400 1.068
> 2.548
> 136.159.2.1 142.3.100.2 2 u 698 1024 0 0.000 0.000
> 0.000
>
> where the last line shows that source has already been dropped,
> reach and stats are all zero, poll bumped multiple times from
> normal 64 to max 1024; and utcnist2 appears to have lost its
> ref clock or server, so is now showing as stratum 16, when > poll,
> poll bumped from usual 64 to 128, reach is zero, stats are frozen,
> not yet reduced to zero.
>
> --
> Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
>
> On 2015-12-12 08:29, brian utterback wrote:
> > Perhaps it would be best if you told us what you are trying to do, what
> > exactly is the event you are trying to trap?
> >
> > On 12/12/2015 2:26 AM, Sowmya Manapragada wrote:
> >> Thanks all for your comments, but if that's expected , I need to depend
> on
> >> something other than the system / peer status words for trapping the
> >> correct sequence of events?
> >> what I mean is even when my server is not reachable and system status
> word
> >> rv 0 = 0615 ..it means to the client (0 leap_none, 6- sync_ntp,1 event,
> >> 5-clock_sync).. and only after 7 to 8 minutes rv 0 status changes and
> >> gives the correct status that the "server peer" is unreachable, same
> with
> >> the client associations status: only after 6 to 8 minutes client
> shows it
> >> has lost the server peer ( not reachable) ..am I missing something
> here ?
> >>
> >> thanks,
> >> Shyam
> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 12:52 PM, Sowmya Manapragada <
> skoga...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Thanks all for your comments, but if that's expected , I need to
> depend on
> >>> something other than the system / peer status words for trapping the
> >>> correct sequence of events?
> >>> what I mean is even when my server is not reachable and system status
> word
> >>> rv 0 = 0615 ..it means to the client (0 leap_none, 6- sync_ntp,1
> event,
> >>> 5-clock_sync).. and only after 7 to 8 minutes rv 0 status changes and
> >>> gives the correct status that the "server peer" is unreachable, same
> with
> >>> the client associations status: only after 6 to 8 minutes client
> shows it
> >>> has lost the server peer ( not reachable) ..am I missing something
> here ?
>
> >>>> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 08:01:14 -0500
> >>>> From: brian utterback <brian.utterb...@oracle.com>
>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, that is the expected behavior.
>
> >>>> On 12/10/2015 6:55 AM, Charles Elliott wrote:
> >>>>> FWIIW, I have seen a similar phenomenon, only with one server. If
> the
> >>>> time
> >>>>> server on my network stops dispensing time for some reason, the
> >>>> computers on
> >>>>> the LAN will still stay sync'ed to its last observation long after
> the
> >>>> reach
> >>>>> indicator goes to zero. Not sure if that is right.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Charles Elliott
> >>>>>
>
> >>>>> Sowmya Manapragada
> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2015 10:26 PM
>
> >>>>> Just wanted to check if what I am observing with4.2.8p4 is as
> expected
> >>>> or I
> >>>>> missed out something because I don't see this with older 4.2.8p2/p3
> :I
> >>>> have
> >>>>> a client having 2 NTP servers (both servers in my LAN ), client makes
> >>>> one as
> >>>>> a peer ( to which it is currently synced) and other as a candidate;
> the
> >>>> peer
> >>>>> (server) goes down, my client at least waited 7 to 8 min to reject
> this
> >>>> peer
> >>>>> server and choose the available one... Checked in Mein berg monitor
> tool
> >>>>> also and rv0 command ... The status word just don't show that client
> >>>>> rejected server until 7 to 8 minutes... Wire shark correctly shows no
> >>>>> packets exchanged between my clint and peer ( right from moment when
> >>>> server
> >>>>> which is down)..my client ntp.conf is standard with an iburst...
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> questions mailing list
> questions@lists.ntp.org
> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of questions Digest, Vol 134, Issue 9
> *****************************************
>
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
