janfr...@tanso.net wrote:
Also, won't an ntpd without a LOCAL clock quickly stop serving time
+ if it's out of sync with it's remote time sources?
It won't stop serving the time, but dowstream systems may choose to
ignore it. In that case, they will free run with the last known
Abu Abdullah wrote:
Does this mean ntpd is not supposed to be run in parallel? Is there any
It is not seen as something anyone would want to do.
option to disable adjusting the system clock?
I believe there is, but that instance would become a pure server. The
time that ntpd serves is
David Woolley david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid wrote:
Abu Abdullah wrote:
Does this mean ntpd is not supposed to be run in parallel? Is there any
It is not seen as something anyone would want to do.
I could understand why someone would want to run one instance that
controls the clock, and
option to disable adjusting the system clock?
I believe there is, but that instance would become a pure server. The
time that ntpd serves is always that in the local system clock.
I would appreciate if you can provide it so at least i can get rid of these
warnings.
As someone already
In article
CAD678-DQ-nMVJP5EPsb+0i699S_VrDsB2yzNkE4c=Btv=ny...@mail.gmail.com,
Abu Abdullah falcon.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
option to disable adjusting the system clock?
I believe there is, but that instance would become a pure server. The
time that ntpd serves is always that in the
Abu Abdullah wrote:
BlackLists wrote:
Abu Abdullah wrote:
I tried running multiple instances with the following
configuration to avoid listening to the same local
interface by the two instances:
interface ignore lo
lo0 ?
loopback address, but it seems it only disables lo on ipv6.
I'm
Abu Abdullah wrote:
In this case we will not have to change the NTP
IPs in the clients configurations (private).
Use names, instead of IPs?
--
E-Mail Sent to this address blackl...@anitech-systems.com
will be added to the BlackLists.
___
On 2013-03-05, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
David Woolley david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid wrote:
Abu Abdullah wrote:
Does this mean ntpd is not supposed to be run in parallel? Is there any
It is not seen as something anyone would want to do.
I could understand why someone would want to
On 2013-03-05, Abu Abdullah falcon.sh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:12 PM, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added
to the BlackLists Null@blacklist.anitech-systems.invalid wrote:
Abu Abdullah wrote:
I'm trying to run two instances of ntp
They are going to fight each other
On 2013-03-04, 1900116857 1900116...@qq.com wrote:
Dear sir,
I'm a student from Asia.
My OS is Ubuntu12.04amd64
I dowloaded the NTP4.2.6p5 package and installed it with following commands:
configure
make
make install
Installation seems successful. No error is reported. But there still
Be aware that if the hope is that the private network be immune to
hacking from the public network, or immune to leakage of information
from private to public, there cannot be a computer common to both
networks.
There are hardware solutions to this dilemma, specifically GPS
receivers with
Yes, I meant try interface ignore lo0
instead of interface ignore lo.
For that matter try interface ignore ipv4?
I will try this
What version of ntpd are you running 4.2.7p359?
Not this one. I'm not on the machine now but it was the latest code one
week back, maybe 4.2.7p357
each with different interface.
I want to have instance for each network.
Why?
mentioned it before
We have a requirement for NTP service for two different networks: public
(not important, can have outages), private (important). we are trying to
have separate process for each
On 3/5/2013 9:37 AM, unruh wrote:
ntpd both controls the clock and serves time.
Why would you want to split those?
Because they want to do funny things with the service,
like serve time with a offset,
while keeping the local machine as close to UTC as possible?
I've had many people ask me
unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2013-03-05, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
David Woolley david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid wrote:
Abu Abdullah wrote:
Does this mean ntpd is not supposed to be run in parallel? Is there any
It is not seen as something anyone would want to do.
I could
On 2013-03-04, 1900116857 1900116...@qq.com wrote:
My OS is Ubuntu12.04amd64
NTP 4.2.6p3 is packaged for Ubuntu precise:
http://packages.ubuntu.com/precise/ntp
It is available for installation from the Ubuntu package repositories.
You should be able to see the whether or not the ntp package
Based on what is being requested, I can suggest one way to accomplish
it, but it involves using an OS feature, rather than using an NTP feature.
If it is feasible to run Oracle Solaris on the system in question, you
could use the Solaris Zones feature to do what you want. You could have
one
Abu Abdullah wrote:
from the responses i start to think that this scenario
is not supposed to be implemented and I'm trying to figure
out why (and to find another solution).
Why? Because its not what 99.% do with ntpd.
IIRC, www.cubinlab.ee.unimelb.edu.au/radclock/ advertises
that it
Rob wrote:
I could understand why someone would want to run one instance that
controls the clock, and another instance that only serves time to
clients on the (inter)net and cannot control the clock.
One would normally simply set suitable access restrictions for un-named
clients. I think
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
The two NTP processes cannot serve identical times; there will be
a difference between the two instances!
They will both serve the same time, which is the time in the local
system clock.
___
questions mailing list
On 3/4/2013 11:13 PM, Abu Abdullah wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:12 PM, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added
to the BlackLists Null@blacklist.anitech-systems.invalid wrote:
Abu Abdullah wrote:
I'm trying to run two instances of ntp
What problem are you trying to solve?
The two
Abu Abdullah wrote:
option to disable adjusting the system clock?
I believe there is, but that instance would become a pure server. The
time that ntpd serves is always that in the local system clock.
I would appreciate if you can provide it so at least i can get rid of these
warnings.
David Woolley david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid wrote:
Rob wrote:
I could understand why someone would want to run one instance that
controls the clock, and another instance that only serves time to
clients on the (inter)net and cannot control the clock.
One would normally simply set
On 2013-03-05, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2013-03-05, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
David Woolley david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid wrote:
Abu Abdullah wrote:
Does this mean ntpd is not supposed to be run in parallel? Is there any
It is not seen as
On 2013-03-05, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
David Woolley david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid wrote:
Rob wrote:
I could understand why someone would want to run one instance that
controls the clock, and another instance that only serves time to
clients on the (inter)net and cannot control the
On Friday, March 1, 2013 7:52:01 PM UTC+1, Kyle Guilbert wrote:
I'm writing some code to use libntpq to query the local NTP daemon, and
it looks as though the libntpq interface throws away the System Status
Word (with Leap, Source, Count, Event fields). I think this is the third
Hi,
I noticed that too,
res = doquery(CTL_OP_READVAR, associd, 0, 0, NULL, rstatus,
dsize, datap);
only datap is copied in resultbuf
so maybe you can format rstatus to string and and memcpy it.
Something like (its ugly)
sprintf(fstatus,status=%x, ,rstatus);
On 3/5/2013 4:59 PM, Rob wrote:
This usually without considering the situation of the poster in more
detail, and often with information that dates from the distant past.
SYNTAX ERROR.
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
On 3/5/2013 4:41 PM, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
The two NTP processes cannot serve identical times; there will be
a difference between the two instances!
A single instance (on a single interface) can't (or more properly,
won't) serve identical times, since requests by nature occur at
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Brian Utterback brian.utterb...@oracle.com
wrote:
Based on what is being requested, I can suggest one way to accomplish it,
but it involves using an OS feature, rather than using an NTP feature.
If it is feasible to run Oracle Solaris on the system in
In this case we will not have to change the NTP
IPs in the clients configurations (private).
Use names, instead of IPs?
My mistake, in all cases we will not need to change the IP since we can
connect the private domain through a different IP than the public one.
31 matches
Mail list logo
