On 2015-02-24, Paul tik-...@bodosom.net wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Charles Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 2015, at 11:57 PM, David Woolley david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid
wrote:
On 23/02/15 21:23, William Unruh wrote:
manual corrections are probably good to 1 sec.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Charles Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
On Feb 23, 2015, at 11:57 PM, David Woolley david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid
wrote:
On 23/02/15 21:23, William Unruh wrote:
manual corrections are probably good to 1 sec.
It's a long time since I did this, but 200ms is
On Feb 24, 2015, at 11:40 AM, Paul tik-...@bodosom.net wrote:
However, if you time things with a rhythm you can get to ~50 ms or better
While these performance anecdotes are interesting they (starting with
unruh@invalid) are all anecdotes. I didn't mention research and real
numbers by
On 23/02/15 21:23, William Unruh wrote:
manual corrections are probably good to 1 sec. to get 1 sec at 2ppm is
about 5 days per measurement or 10 days altogether.
It's a long time since I did this, but 200ms is more like it (might have
been 100ms). You need digital clock that is, itself,
On Feb 23, 2015, at 11:57 PM, David Woolley david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid
wrote:
On 23/02/15 21:23, William Unruh wrote:
manual corrections are probably good to 1 sec. to get 1 sec at 2ppm is
about 5 days per measurement or 10 days altogether.
It's a long time since I did this, but 200ms
Charles Swiger wrote:
On Feb 23, 2015, at 11:57 PM, David Woolley david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid
wrote:
On 23/02/15 21:23, William Unruh wrote:
manual corrections are probably good to 1 sec. to get 1 sec at 2ppm is
about 5 days per measurement or 10 days altogether.
It's a long time since I
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:17 PM, William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
It is superior in that you can do it easily. Whether that is of any
importance to you is of course up to you. Myself I have never used it.
As is often the case you completely miss the point.
Fine. It has already been
On 2015-02-25, Paul tik-...@bodosom.net wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Charles Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
Data is available. Feel free to review the papers referenced from:
I was unclear. I mean specific research regarding disciplining a clock via
manual correction not human
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Charles Swiger cswi...@mac.com wrote:
Data is available. Feel free to review the papers referenced from:
I was unclear. I mean specific research regarding disciplining a clock via
manual correction not human coordination or fine motor control.
As I said, an
On 2015-02-25, Paul tik-...@bodosom.net wrote:
On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:17 PM, William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
It is superior in that you can do it easily. Whether that is of any
importance to you is of course up to you. Myself I have never used it.
As is often the case you
On 2015-02-23, Paul tik-...@bodosom.net wrote:
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:53 PM, William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
As Lichvar says with chrony
you periodically read your watch, or listen to radio, and set the time
and chrony figures out that you have a drift rate of about 30PPM and
On 2015-02-23, Harlan Stenn st...@ntp.org wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar writes:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 07:02:28PM +, David Taylor wrote:
On 21/02/2015 17:52, William Unruh wrote:
[]
It will do that too. The crucial item there is the only method of time
correction is manual entry which is
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:53 PM, William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
As Lichvar says with chrony
you periodically read your watch, or listen to radio, and set the time
and chrony figures out that you have a drift rate of about 30PPM and
corrects. Now you may not value that possibility,
On 2015-02-23, Harlan Stenn st...@ntp.org wrote:
William Unruh writes:
On 2015-02-23, Harlan Stenn st...@ntp.org wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar writes:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 07:02:28PM +, David Taylor wrote:
On 21/02/2015 17:52, William Unruh wrote:
[]
It will do that too. The
Miroslav Lichvar writes:
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 07:02:28PM +, David Taylor wrote:
On 21/02/2015 17:52, William Unruh wrote:
[]
It will do that too. The crucial item there is the only method of time
correction is manual entry which is different from ntpd and orphan
mode. I have no
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 07:02:28PM +, David Taylor wrote:
On 21/02/2015 17:52, William Unruh wrote:
[]
It will do that too. The crucial item there is the only method of time
correction is manual entry which is different from ntpd and orphan
mode. I have no idea why this conversation is
David Taylor wrote:
On 21/02/2015 07:04, William Unruh wrote:
[]
orphan mode is about a group of computers. Orphan Mode allows a group
of ntpd processes to automonously select a leader in the event that all
real time sources become unreachable (i.e. are inaccessible).
chrony's is that you can
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2015-02-19, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:48:46PM +, Rob wrote:
I am still finding out what sensor is best to use, we do have a room
temperature sensor that has .1C resolution
David Taylor writes:
On 21/02/2015 07:04, William Unruh wrote:
[]
orphan mode is about a group of computers. Orphan Mode allows a group
of ntpd processes to automonously select a leader in the event that all
real time sources become unreachable (i.e. are inaccessible).
chrony's is that
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2015-02-19, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:05:45AM +, Rob wrote:
We have systems in places that are not temperature controlled and then
chrony is much better. I am looking for
On 2015-02-21 01:00, Rob wrote:
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2015-02-19, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:05:45AM +, Rob wrote:
We have systems in places that are not temperature controlled and then
chrony is
On 2015-02-21, David Taylor david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid wrote:
On 21/02/2015 07:04, William Unruh wrote:
[]
orphan mode is about a group of computers. Orphan Mode allows a group
of ntpd processes to automonously select a leader in the event that all
real time sources become
Brian Inglis brian.ing...@systematicsw.ab.ca wrote:
On 2015-02-21 01:00, Rob wrote:
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2015-02-19, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:05:45AM +, Rob wrote:
We have systems in places
On 2015-02-21, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2015-02-19, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:05:45AM +, Rob wrote:
We have systems in places that are not temperature controlled and
On 2015-02-21, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2015-02-19, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:48:46PM +, Rob wrote:
I am still finding out what sensor is best to use, we do have a room
On Sat, Feb 21, 2015 at 1:57 AM, William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2015-02-21, Paul tik-...@bodosom.net wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 3:23 PM, William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
??? how do assume that the chrony docs do not tell the truth?
^ you
Okay, I'll assume
On 21/02/2015 17:52, William Unruh wrote:
[]
It will do that too. The crucial item there is the only method of time
correction is manual entry which is different from ntpd and orphan
mode. I have no idea why this conversation is continuing. The two are
different. The two methods are trying to
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
What are you using? Are you on ntpd or chrony?
Please do not followup to my postings when you don't care to follow
the thread!
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 04:15:45PM +, Rob wrote:
The default PPS refclock driver poll is 0 (1s), this be changed too
if the PPS signal has a higher rate. Some GPS units seems to have this
configurable (e.g. ublox NEO-6T).
The PPS really is 1 PPS, but I am not sure if chrony is
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:58:14PM +, Harlan Stenn wrote:
Would the temperature monitoring script and coefficient
generation/processsing stuff be a good GSoC project?
Not really, it would be probably easier to write the scripts than
write the GSoC application.
I'd be more interested in
On 2015-02-19, David Taylor david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid wrote:
On 19/02/2015 01:24, Paul wrote:
[]
Chrony (in general) pros and cons:
http://chrony.tuxfamily.org/manual.html#Other-time-synchronisation-packages
[]
... whwre it says: Things chronyd can do that ntpd can?t: chronyd
On 2015-02-19, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:05:45AM +, Rob wrote:
We have systems in places that are not temperature controlled and then
chrony is much better. I am looking for the best way to find the
values to use
On 2015-02-19, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:48:46PM +, Rob wrote:
I am still finding out what sensor is best to use, we do have a room
temperature sensor that has .1C resolution and is readable via snmp,
and there are
On 2015-02-19, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
My update to that after the years would be that 3x is not really the
minimum difference. If the clock is stable enough, they can perform
similarly.
Indeed when a system is in a reasonably constant
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 3:23 PM, William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
??? how do assume that the chrony docs do not tell the truth?
I don't understand that sentence.
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
On 20/02/2015 20:22, William Unruh wrote:
[]
No. The local clock simply trusts the time (Ie all offsets are defined
to be zero) chrony takes the time as entered by hand by the operator and
uses that to determine the offset. Of course that will not be terribly
accurate ( a second is probably
On 2015-02-19, Paul tik-...@bodosom.net wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:34 AM, David Taylor
david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid wrote:
Does not NTP's orphan mode and local clock driver provide this?
Refclock 1 (LOCAL/LOCL) is deprecated and I believe as of a recent release
it's
On 2015-02-21, Paul tik-...@bodosom.net wrote:
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 3:23 PM, William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
??? how do assume that the chrony docs do not tell the truth?
^ you
I don't understand that sentence.
___
questions
On 2015-02-21, David Taylor david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid wrote:
On 20/02/2015 20:22, William Unruh wrote:
[]
No. The local clock simply trusts the time (Ie all offsets are defined
to be zero) chrony takes the time as entered by hand by the operator and
uses that to determine the
On 21/02/2015 07:04, William Unruh wrote:
[]
orphan mode is about a group of computers. Orphan Mode allows a group
of ntpd processes to automonously select a leader in the event that all
real time sources become unreachable (i.e. are inaccessible).
chrony's is that you can enter the time by
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
In the specific case of PPS I don't see any advantage.
Well, no. Lichvar did some tests with PPS and found that chrony
disciplined the clock much better than did ntpd (factors of over 10). I
think that is a difference.
I am seeing the same thing on our
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:00:08PM -0500, Paul wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 8:53 PM, William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2015-02-19, Paul tik-...@bodosom.net wrote:
In the specific case of PPS I don't see any advantage.
Well, no. Lichvar did some tests with PPS and found that
On 19/02/2015 18:09, Paul wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:35 PM, David Taylor
david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid wrote:
Accurate and current documentation is both essential and invaluable for
any project!
Well then under no circumstances should you read the ntp faq/howto at
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:05:45AM +, Rob wrote:
We have systems in places that are not temperature controlled and then
chrony is much better. I am looking for the best way to find the
values to use in the tempcomp configuration directive.
What resolution does the sensor have? Don't
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
My update to that after the years would be that 3x is not really the
minimum difference. If the clock is stable enough, they can perform
similarly.
Indeed when a system is in a reasonably constant temperature and the
clock happens to be good, ntpd
On 19/02/2015 01:24, Paul wrote:
[]
Chrony (in general) pros and cons:
http://chrony.tuxfamily.org/manual.html#Other-time-synchronisation-packages
[]
... whwre it says: Things chronyd can do that ntpd can’t: chronyd
provides support for isolated networks whether the only method of time
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 10:05:45AM +, Rob wrote:
We have systems in places that are not temperature controlled and then
chrony is much better. I am looking for the best way to find the
values to use in the tempcomp configuration directive.
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 02:42:39PM +, Rob wrote:
Ok but of course we are using PPS and a 16 second polling interval.
(or maybe the PPS refclock polls even faster although it displays 4 as
the poll interval indicator)
You may want to try a shorter polling interval and see if the swings
are
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 9:42 AM, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Ok but of course we are using PPS and a 16 second polling interval.
Use eight unless your system is broken in which replace it and then use
eight.
___
questions mailing list
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:48:46PM +, Rob wrote:
I am still finding out what sensor is best to use, we do have a room
temperature sensor that has .1C resolution and is readable via snmp,
and there are the usual sensors for board- and inlet air temperature.
(and of course CPU temperature)
I admit that I have not looked at the chrony code/doc and do not use it as it
when I did take a look, it had no ref clock support so I don’t know what the
objective is here. That said, from the current discussion I have a feeling that
integrating temperature data into the clock control loop is
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Harlan Stenn st...@ntp.org wrote:
While that document is old and unmaintained
So put an appropriate note at the top of it and on the link to it from the
WebHome page. No one that stumbles onto it is going to find any gems.
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 02:42:39PM +, Rob wrote:
Ok but of course we are using PPS and a 16 second polling interval.
(or maybe the PPS refclock polls even faster although it displays 4 as
the poll interval indicator)
You may want to try a
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:48:46PM +, Rob wrote:
I am still finding out what sensor is best to use, we do have a room
temperature sensor that has .1C resolution and is readable via snmp,
and there are the usual sensors for board- and inlet air
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:34 AM, David Taylor
david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid wrote:
Does not NTP's orphan mode and local clock driver provide this?
Refclock 1 (LOCAL/LOCL) is deprecated and I believe as of a recent release
it's useless* but Orphan mode is intended to replace the local
On 19/02/2015 14:20, Paul wrote:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 5:34 AM, David Taylor
david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid wrote:
Does not NTP's orphan mode and local clock driver provide this?
Refclock 1 (LOCAL/LOCL) is deprecated and I believe as of a recent release
it's useless* but Orphan
Would the temperature monitoring script and coefficient
generation/processsing stuff be a good GSoC project?
If so, if somebody wants to mentor this please add it as an idea at
http://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Dev/GSoCProjectIdeas
H
___
questions
Paul writes:
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 12:35 PM, David Taylor
david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid wrote:
Accurate and current documentation is both essential and invaluable for
any project!
Well then under no circumstances should you read the ntp faq/howto at
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2015 3:27 AM
To: questions@lists.ntp.org
Subject: Re: [ntp:questions] chrony as a server
David Woolley david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid wrote:
On 15/02/15 22:40, Rob wrote:
it is tracking very nicely
Tracking what?
The PPS signal
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 8:53 PM, William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2015-02-19, Paul tik-...@bodosom.net wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Charles Elliott elliott...@comcast.net
wrote:
If you don't mind me asking, why is chrony superior to NTPD
for tracking a PPS signal,
On 2015-02-19, Paul tik-...@bodosom.net wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Charles Elliott elliott...@comcast.net
wrote:
If you don't mind me asking, why is chrony superior to NTPD
for tracking a PPS signal, or even in general
Chrony (in general) pros and cons:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:49 AM, Charles Elliott elliott...@comcast.net
wrote:
If you don't mind me asking, why is chrony superior to NTPD
for tracking a PPS signal, or even in general
Chrony (in general) pros and cons:
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
As I said I have six machines, one of which is at home over an cable
modem line, all getting their time from chrony on a server. No trouble
whatsoever, and I have never had any. This suggests that there is
something else going on. Now, I do not have the
On 16/02/2015 19:54, Paul wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:57 AM, David Taylor
david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid wrote:
For me, there are two show-stoppers with Chrony:
- no support for standard NTP monitoring commands.
- no support for ref-clocks on Windows.
Like many others, I have
On 2015-02-16, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2015-02-15, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
I am experimenting with chrony 1.31 as an alternative on some PPS
synchronized servers. It appears to run OK, it is tracking very nicely:
Reference ID:
On 2015-02-17, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
As I said I have six machines, one of which is at home over an cable
modem line, all getting their time from chrony on a server. No trouble
whatsoever, and I have never had any. This suggests that there is
David Woolley david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid wrote:
On 15/02/15 22:40, Rob wrote:
it is tracking very nicely
Tracking what?
The PPS signal.
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 07:19:39PM +, Rob wrote:
The PPS refclock has changed is refid from PPP0 to PPP1 with this version.
That is a bug, the refid numbering wasn't supposted to change in the
new version. Fixed in git. Thanks.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 03:30:52PM +, Rob wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:00:30PM +, Rob wrote:
Is chronyc of 1.31 compatible with chronyd 2.0?
Yes, old configuration should still work. But you can use
acquisitionport 123 as a
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:00:30PM +, Rob wrote:
Is chronyc of 1.31 compatible with chronyd 2.0?
Yes, old configuration should still work. But you can use
acquisitionport 123 as a workaround if you prefer stable version.
Well I tried that
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 03:12:27PM +0100, Terje Mathisen wrote:
William Unruh wrote:
I think, but am not sure, that the biggest problem with porting chrony
to windows is that windows does not have a good way of having the kernel
discipline the clock-- the equivalent of adjtimex on Linux.
If
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:22 AM, David Taylor
david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid wrote:
I hope that ntimed will not be available only on Linux
If you have a non-trivial interest I suggest reading the notes. E.g.
Ntimed-client puts the entire interface to the OS timekeeping in four
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 03:51:07PM +, David Lord wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
As a workaround you can add acquisitionport 123 to chrony.conf to
use just one socket for all (client, peer, server) communication,
which will effectively disable the check in which the server's request
is
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:56:27PM +, David Lord wrote:
I've just fetched chrony-2.0-pre1. It seemed to compile and
install ok on NetBSD-6/i386. The client IS one of the servers
configured in chrony.conf and it behaved same as with 1.31.
I didn't know this was such
On 16/02/2015 15:59, Paul wrote:
[]
If you have a non-trivial interest I suggest reading the notes. E.g.
Ntimed-client puts the entire interface to the OS timekeeping in four
trivial functions for portability, but there are other nits and downright
idiotic incompatibilities, because, quite
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 03:30:52PM +, Rob wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:00:30PM +, Rob wrote:
Is chronyc of 1.31 compatible with chronyd 2.0?
Yes, old configuration should still work. But
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 2:57 AM, David Taylor
david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid wrote:
For me, there are two show-stoppers with Chrony:
- no support for standard NTP monitoring commands.
- no support for ref-clocks on Windows.
Like many others, I have built up a considerable
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:14 PM, David Taylor
david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid wrote:
I have a non-trivial interest
I meant in Ntimed (the system) not time transfer in general.
If ntimed is not going to be available for Windows and OS/X that rules it
out for the great majority of
On 15/02/15 22:40, Rob wrote:
it is tracking very nicely
Tracking what?
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:29:31AM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 09:59:27AM +, Rob wrote:
I have strace'd the daemon and I see that it does receive the datagram
from the socket, but it does not send a reply.
Hm,
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 09:59:27AM +, Rob wrote:
I have strace'd the daemon and I see that it does receive the datagram
from the socket, but it does not send a reply.
Hm, interesting. Can you post what follows that recvmsg() call?
I can not do
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 12:56:27PM +, David Lord wrote:
I've just fetched chrony-2.0-pre1. It seemed to compile and
install ok on NetBSD-6/i386. The client IS one of the servers
configured in chrony.conf and it behaved same as with 1.31.
I didn't know this was such a common configuration.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 02:00:30PM +, Rob wrote:
Is chronyc of 1.31 compatible with chronyd 2.0?
Yes, old configuration should still work. But you can use
acquisitionport 123 as a workaround if you prefer stable version.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
___
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 03:51:07PM +, David Lord wrote:
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
As a workaround you can add acquisitionport 123 to chrony.conf to
use just one socket for all (client, peer, server) communication,
which will effectively disable the check in which the
On 16/02/2015 08:46, William Unruh wrote:
[]
I think, but am not sure, that the biggest problem with porting chrony
to windows is that windows does not have a good way of having the kernel
discipline the clock-- the equivalent of adjtimex on Linux.
NTP already manages that very well on
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 09:59:27AM +, Rob wrote:
I have strace'd the daemon and I see that it does receive the datagram
from the socket, but it does not send a reply.
Hm, interesting. Can you post what follows that recvmsg() call?
You could try running it with -d -d (after it's compiled
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:29:31AM +0100, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 09:59:27AM +, Rob wrote:
I have strace'd the daemon and I see that it does receive the datagram
from the socket, but it does not send a reply.
Hm, interesting. Can you post what follows that
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 10:40:11PM +, Rob wrote:
However, it does not reply to NTP requests from other systems with ntpd.
(I can confirm that in a network trace)
Is there a magic command that has to be in the config to make it work
as a server?
No, your configuration looks good. Any
On 2015-02-16, David Taylor david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid wrote:
On 16/02/2015 07:59, William Unruh wrote:
[]
?? There are chonyc which is its own monitoring. chrony is not ntpd, so
why would you expect ntpc monitoring commands to work?
[]
As I already said, compatibility with the
David Lord wrote:
Rob wrote:
I am experimenting with chrony 1.31 as an alternative on some PPS
synchronized servers. It appears to run OK, it is tracking very nicely:
.
Me too, I downloaded compiled and installed earlier this
morning on NetBSD-6/i386.
When I was on dialup, I used
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2015-02-15, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
I am experimenting with chrony 1.31 as an alternative on some PPS
synchronized servers. It appears to run OK, it is tracking very nicely:
Reference ID: 80.80.83.48 (PPS0)
Stratum : 1
Ref time
David Taylor david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid wrote:
On 15/02/2015 22:40, Rob wrote:
I am experimenting with chrony 1.31 as an alternative on some PPS
synchronized servers. It appears to run OK, it is tracking very nicely:
[]
For me, there are two show-stoppers with Chrony:
- no
On 15/02/2015 22:40, Rob wrote:
I am experimenting with chrony 1.31 as an alternative on some PPS
synchronized servers. It appears to run OK, it is tracking very nicely:
[]
For me, there are two show-stoppers with Chrony:
- no support for standard NTP monitoring commands.
- no support for
On 16/02/2015 07:59, William Unruh wrote:
[]
?? There are chonyc which is its own monitoring. chrony is not ntpd, so
why would you expect ntpc monitoring commands to work?
[]
As I already said, compatibility with the installed base would greatly
increase the acceptance on different software.
On 2015-02-16, David Taylor david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid wrote:
On 15/02/2015 22:40, Rob wrote:
I am experimenting with chrony 1.31 as an alternative on some PPS
synchronized servers. It appears to run OK, it is tracking very nicely:
[]
For me, there are two show-stoppers with
Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 10:40:11PM +, Rob wrote:
However, it does not reply to NTP requests from other systems with ntpd.
(I can confirm that in a network trace)
Is there a magic command that has to be in the config to make it work
as a server?
I have strace'd the daemon and I see that it does receive the datagram
from the socket, but it does not send a reply.
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
I am experimenting with chrony 1.31 as an alternative on some PPS
synchronized servers. It appears to run OK, it is tracking very nicely:
Reference ID: 80.80.83.48 (PPS0)
Stratum : 1
Ref time (UTC) : Sun Feb 15 22:34:01 2015
System time : 0.00076 seconds fast of NTP time
On 2015-02-15, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
I am experimenting with chrony 1.31 as an alternative on some PPS
synchronized servers. It appears to run OK, it is tracking very nicely:
Reference ID: 80.80.83.48 (PPS0)
Stratum : 1
Ref time (UTC) : Sun Feb 15 22:34:01 2015
System
Rob wrote:
I am experimenting with chrony 1.31 as an alternative on some PPS
synchronized servers. It appears to run OK, it is tracking very nicely:
Reference ID: 80.80.83.48 (PPS0)
Stratum : 1
Ref time (UTC) : Sun Feb 15 22:34:01 2015
System time : 0.00076 seconds fast
100 matches
Mail list logo
