On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 3:57 PM, Rob wrote:
> Compare it with a RAID-1 disk system. When one disk has an unreadable
> sector, the situation is clear: use the sector from the other disk.
> When both disks are readable but return different data, you cannot know
> which one is correct.
>
> This norm
Rick Jones wrote:
> David Woolley wrote:
>> For a start, if it dropped a source on the first missing reply it
>> would result in clock hopping, which is undesirable. UDP is
>> unrliable, and you cannot rely on getting every query returned.
>
> In that sense then, even TCP is unreliable for it ca
David,
Not true. The dispersion does increase, but the server is valid until
the dispersion exceeds the select threshold, usually in four or five
more missed messages.
Dave
David Woolley wrote:
David Woolley wrote:
Looking at the, slightly out of date, 4.2.4p4, a reachability of 1/8
is
Steve Kostecke wrote:
If both servers are within 128ms of each other, the clients will slew
toward the time seen from the new time server. If the server are more
than 128ms "apart", the clients will step to the time seen from the new
time server.
If they are more than roughly their root distan
David Woolley wrote:
Looking at the, slightly out of date, 4.2.4p4, a reachability of 1/8 is
still acceptable. Rejection during startup will be based on a high
On a further look, it looks like the source's quality measures are
invalidated after three consecutive missed replies.
Hal Murray wrote:
> The problem is that IF they give wildly different answers
> (perhaps because one of them is broken) THEN you don't know
> which one is good.
As they say here: IF the sky falls down THEN we all have a blue hat.
Compare it with a RAID-1 disk system. When one disk has an unread
>The fundamental problem with two servers is this: which one do you
>believe when the two differ? You know that at least one of the two must
>be wrong but it's impossible to determine WHICH one!
You get more than time from a packet exchange. You also get
a good idea of the accuracy. Two cloc
On 2010-01-18, j...@free.fr wrote:
> for a ship project, we've got a LAN with two NTP servers synchronised
> by a masterclock, itself synchronized by GPS. The idea was to have
> redundancy between the 2 servers, to ensure continuous synchronization
> to the clients in case one of the server went
On 2010-01-19, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>>> The fundamental problem with two servers is this: which one do you
>>> believe when the two differ? You know that at least one of the two must
>>> be wrong but it's impossible to determine WHICH one!
>>
>>
On 2010-01-19, pc wrote:
> Jean,
>
> It's already been said (and others may say it again) that an NTP
> configuration with
> two servers is generally considered bad. That's true in the sense that
> a
> two-server setup won't give you better time than a single-server
> setup,
> and may indeed give
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>>> The fundamental problem with two servers is this: which one do you
>>> believe when the two differ? You know that at least one of the two must
>>> be wrong but it's impossible to determine WHICH one!
>>
>> This is not rel
Rob wrote:
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
The fundamental problem with two servers is this: which one do you
believe when the two differ? You know that at least one of the two must
be wrong but it's impossible to determine WHICH one!
This is not relevant when the two servers return the same time
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> The fundamental problem with two servers is this: which one do you
> believe when the two differ? You know that at least one of the two must
> be wrong but it's impossible to determine WHICH one!
This is not relevant when the two servers return the same time within
pc wrote:
Jean,
It's already been said (and others may say it again) that an NTP
configuration with
two servers is generally considered bad. That's true in the sense that
a
two-server setup won't give you better time than a single-server
setup,
and may indeed give you slightly worse time; you wo
Jean,
It's already been said (and others may say it again) that an NTP
configuration with
two servers is generally considered bad. That's true in the sense that
a
two-server setup won't give you better time than a single-server
setup,
and may indeed give you slightly worse time; you would have to
In article
<1245298544.863191263816061789.javamail.r...@spooler9-g27.priv.proxad.net>,
j...@free.fr writes:
>Hello everybody,
>
>for a ship project, we've got a LAN with two NTP servers
synchronised by a masterclock, itself synchronized by GPS.
>The idea was to have redundancy between the 2 serv
16 matches
Mail list logo
