Op 24/02/2012 om 12:32:51 +0100, schreef Miroslav Lichvar:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:12:10PM +0100, Leo Baltus wrote:
> > Op 24/02/2012 om 11:43:01 +0100, schreef Miroslav Lichvar:
> > > I think that will create a positive feedback loop and will not work
> > > well, if at all. The instance
Op 24/02/2012 om 11:43:01 +0100, schreef Miroslav Lichvar:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:02:55AM +0100, Leo Baltus wrote:
> > I am not saying that multiple processes should serve a single clock.
> >
> > Let me try some good old ascii art:
> >
> > uplink local nets
> >
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 11:02:55AM +0100, Leo Baltus wrote:
> I am not saying that multiple processes should serve a single clock.
>
> Let me try some good old ascii art:
>
> uplink local nets
>pool --- ntp-only-server1 --- ntp-client
>
This is an automated email from git. It was enerated because a ref
change was pushed to the repository "chrony/chrony.git".
The branch, master has been updated
via 824e86a82fb8aa5058513b4c89ae2e1c7d6e348d (commit)
via 2a5c045c3dc2a8a1a69854e793c155a07ffaca7d (commit)
from
Op 23/02/2012 om 12:34:50 +, schreef Ed W:
> On 23/02/2012 08:24, Leo Baltus wrote:
> >Op 22/02/2012 om 23:07:51 +, schreef Ed W:
> >>>In our setup we do not like to pin a service to a specific piece of
> >>>hardware. If, for some reason, a service should run elsewhere we just
> >>>stop it
On Fri, 24 Feb 2012, Leo Baltus wrote:
I am not saying that multiple processes should serve a single clock.
Let me try some good old ascii art:
uplink local nets
pool --- ntp-only-server1 --- ntp-client
ntp-only-server2 ---
