On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:23:14 +0200
Mel Flynn wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 April 2009 19:31:33 RW wrote:
> > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:43:32 +0200
> >
> > Mel Flynn wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 21 April 2009 16:20:52 RW wrote:
> > > > The bottom line though, is that ntpdate_enable=yes solves the
> > > > proble
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 21:07:34 Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Try contacting your ISP for nearby NTP
> sources,
Anchorage, AK, is special that way. I'll check with ACS if they have one, but
if they don't, even traffic to the local competitor (GCI) goes through
Seattle.
--
Mel
On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Mel Flynn wrote:
[ ... -x option... ]
Hmm, that might work. Thanks!
Sure.
It should be surprising that your clock would jump by 6 seconds. Do
you have adequate upstream timesources (ie, at least 4) configured,
is
your local HW clock busted somehow, or are you
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 19:43:30 Chuck Swiger wrote:
> Hi, Mel--
>
> On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:06 AM, Mel Flynn wrote:
> > Some coarse reading of ntpd(8) and ntp.conf(5) doesn't lead me to
> > believe it's
> > possible to make ntpd *not* adjust the time. With adjust I don't
> > mean the skew
> > opera
On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:33 AM, Mel Flynn wrote:
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 20:29:18 Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Mel Flynn wrote:
Now I'm also wondering how ntpd handles securelevel 2.
"man init" suggests that stepping the clock by more than a second is
disallowed:
yes, so
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 20:29:18 Chuck Swiger wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Mel Flynn wrote:
> > Now I'm also wondering how ntpd handles securelevel 2.
>
> "man init" suggests that stepping the clock by more than a second is
> disallowed:
yes, so does it bail or retry till skew wins over
On Apr 21, 2009, at 11:23 AM, Mel Flynn wrote:
Now I'm also wondering how ntpd handles securelevel 2.
"man init" suggests that stepping the clock by more than a second is
disallowed:
2 Highly secure mode - same as secure mode, plus disks may not
be
opened for writing (exce
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 19:31:33 RW wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:43:32 +0200
>
> Mel Flynn wrote:
> > On Tuesday 21 April 2009 16:20:52 RW wrote:
> > > The bottom line though, is that ntpdate_enable=yes solves the
> > > problem entirely, since the real problem is not the step, but the
> > > fa
Hi, Mel--
On Apr 21, 2009, at 2:06 AM, Mel Flynn wrote:
Some coarse reading of ntpd(8) and ntp.conf(5) doesn't lead me to
believe it's
possible to make ntpd *not* adjust the time. With adjust I don't
mean the skew
operation, but really change the time.
Perhaps I've missed it elsewhere in t
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:43:32 +0200
Mel Flynn wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 April 2009 16:20:52 RW wrote:
>
> > The bottom line though, is that ntpdate_enable=yes solves the
> > problem entirely, since the real problem is not the step, but the
> > fact that it happens in the background, and after a dela
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 16:11:52 Tim Judd wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Matthew Seaman <
>
> m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
> > Mel Flynn wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > Some coarse reading of ntpd(8) and ntp.conf(5) doesn't lead me to
> > > believe
> >
> > it's
> >
> > > possibl
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 16:20:52 RW wrote:
> The bottom line though, is that ntpdate_enable=yes solves the problem
> entirely, since the real problem is not the step, but the fact that it
> happens in the background, and after a delay.
Care to expand on that? Dovecot won't stop if root issues a
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 14:09:09 +0200
Mel Flynn wrote:
> On Tuesday 21 April 2009 11:39:32 Matthew Seaman wrote:
> > * Don't run 'ntpd -g' as the documentation tells you is the
> > modern and accepted method. Instead, run 'ntpdate' as a separate
> > process and run 'ntpd' without the '-g' flag.
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 3:39 AM, Matthew Seaman <
m.sea...@infracaninophile.co.uk> wrote:
> Mel Flynn wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Some coarse reading of ntpd(8) and ntp.conf(5) doesn't lead me to believe
> it's
> > possible to make ntpd *not* adjust the time. With adjust I don't mean the
> skew
> > ope
On Tuesday 21 April 2009 11:39:32 Matthew Seaman wrote:
> Mel Flynn wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Some coarse reading of ntpd(8) and ntp.conf(5) doesn't lead me to believe
> > it's possible to make ntpd *not* adjust the time. With adjust I don't
> > mean the skew operation, but really change the time. Bac
Mel Flynn wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Some coarse reading of ntpd(8) and ntp.conf(5) doesn't lead me to believe
> it's
> possible to make ntpd *not* adjust the time. With adjust I don't mean the
> skew
> operation, but really change the time. Backwards is my primary concern but if
> it can be turned off
Hi,
Some coarse reading of ntpd(8) and ntp.conf(5) doesn't lead me to believe it's
possible to make ntpd *not* adjust the time. With adjust I don't mean the skew
operation, but really change the time. Backwards is my primary concern but if
it can be turned off completely it's fine with me.
Rea
17 matches
Mail list logo