In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
cray74 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
the offset between ALL servers needs to be 3 ms; can't put GPS-
What percentage of the time do you need to meet this requirement?
clocks in the datacenters (no GPS-signal); using free public NTP
Use remote antennas for the GPS
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Uwe Klein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Isn't GPS a four axis system
were 3 axes are given in distance
and the third axis in time?
The only information that the satellites transmit and must come from the
satellites is time (i.e. the time at which they transmitted the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
None [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Probably forged, unless none works for Hormel
Foods Corporation) wrote:
Sep 11 01:00:17 x64VDR ntpd[1801]: ntpd [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Aug 13 16:01:31
UTC 2007 (1)
Sep 11 01:00:17 x64VDR ntpd[1802]: unable to bind to wildcard socket address
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dummy cerberus) wrote:
I have Win2K domain with two DC... I would like my RedHat Enterprise
Linux servers get synchronized to the PDC through NTP.
That is a bad idea. Even when running good ntp software, Windows is not
the best time server.
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Spoon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
systohw reads the current system time, then sleeps until the next whole
second, then writes that date to the RTC.
This is arguably off topic as manipulationg the RTC is incompatible with
running ntpd on Linux, at least when using
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Alexander Perlis) wrote:
You haven't really provide any hard information, but a wild guess
would be misuse of local clock in an isolated time island.
Thank you for trying to help us. My apologies as a newbie as far as
As a newbie, you
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
Michael B Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
No response.
NTP is not running.
I think it was running but restricted from replying.
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Michael B Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
No firewalls. From the capture I can clearly see only a request and
reply. There's no attempt to communicate with the time server at all.
The last two sentences contradict each other. A request is an attempt to
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve Kostecke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2007-10-07, David Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A leaf node needs one, basic, server line and nothing else.
Without a drift file line ntpd has no way of saving it's learned clock
If you had quoted the next sentence
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Danny Mayer) wrote:
The normal stratum for the local clock is 10 and not 6 and iburst has no
That depends on whether or not it is externally disciplined. Ideally if
it is only used with no source of true time, or only after the last
source fails,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
lmr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is xntpd configurable to reconnect if the connection fails?
xntpd is either seriously obsolete or misnamed.
No version of ntpd uses connection oriented protocols, so there are no
connections to fail. See the very recent thread about
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Harlan Stenn [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Patrick Nolan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Patrick 6-10 minutes per day, well over the 500 ppm limit.
As others have noted, ntpd cannot help in this situation, if it cannot be
If it is systematic,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
lmr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is xntpd configurable to reconnect if the connection fails?
xntpd is either seriously obsolete or misnamed.
No version of ntpd uses connection oriented protocols, so there are no
connections to fail. See the very recent thread about
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Aggie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To have NTPD run on VxWorks and Windows. Set VxWorks as the Server
couple minutes, the clock on Windows was changed to 5:15pm, Nov 21
1988. I have no idea why it happened. So I looked at the timestamp
Reference clock update
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Aggie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the weird thing is: NTPD will adjust the time on the client half
way between the server and 1970 Jan 1. For example, if the clock on my
What is weird is that the reply from your server is accepted. Once it
is accepted, nearly
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Aggie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
But the weird thing is: NTPD will adjust the time on the client half
way between the server and 1970 Jan 1. For example, if the clock on my
PS. Unless you have explicitly disabled the feature, either for the first
setting, or
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Russell, David) wrote:
I have a PC running Windows that gets disconnected from the network for
up to an hour. I am using NTP to sync the clock while it is connected
but when disconnected the clock drifts quite a bit. Does anyone have
Once
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Svein Skogen) wrote:
Wesley J. Landaker wrote:
Can anyone give me some suggestions on inexpensive ( $100) OEM GPS
units that support NMEA and 1PPS for use with NTP? Or any non-GPS
I'm not sure you will get much below USD 100, but there are
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Richard B. Gilbert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The local clock driver
is harmless as long as people configure it to stratum 10!
This very thread demonstrates a case where it wasn't harmless!
What has happened here
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Rick Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
taps with clue bats, is if I can take the difference in offset between
each client and the time server and ass-u-me that is the difference in
time between the two clients. Or do I have to do something ntp-like
No. If NTP is
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to know if there is a way to tell ntpd to periodically re-
resolve the hostnames provided in ntp.conf. When ntpd starts up it
There is work in progress to provide for re-resolving. It may even
be in the latest builds.
I am
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (T Manikandan-Q3926C) wrote:
NTP to be implemented on the Server running RHEL [Red hat Enterprise
Linux]
To handle at least 10 clients in a network.
I've not had any experience of actually running such a size of server,
so you had maybe
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
David L. Mills [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
documentation. The probable cause is dispersion too high or the noselect
option is present. The prefer option has nothing to do with this.
I would have thought the most likely cause was dispersion too *small* not
too large,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
compliant. Is there a similar mod for NTP. I am
hoping that there is a mod that will cause NTP to
supply theoretical UTC (even if it is not ascci).
Both POSIX and NTP use UTC. Your problem is that you are not using
using UTC, but,
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Steve [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is expected to happen when client IP changes while running NTP
Autokey? I am concerned that it will lose sync because of the IPs used
This should not happen on a properly managed DHCP system. There is
speculation that the
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Christopher Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a system without a battery-backed clock and I want to get some
semblance of the right time at boot up using sntp. Since the time
starts out decades off, I need to accept a large correction on my
NTP timestamps
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Heiko Gerstung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My first tests showed that this version of ntp seems to converge very
slow despite an initial offset of +/- 500us. It seems that ntp's
You need to start with an error of more than 128ms if you don't have
a valid saved
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Woolley) wrote:
Pop corn spikes of less than 128ms are not ignored in the default
configuration. If, as I suspect, you only have one time source, they
However I forgot that only the best of the last 8 samples is used. Sample
quality
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Unruh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Woolley) writes:
Note that chrony seems not to have been updated for several years and its
Actually not true. The latest version 1.23 has just been released, but it
is true that the support has become
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
What IS 11 minute mode??
If the linux kernel is told that its clock is being disciplined, it sets
the RTC from the software clock every 11 minutes. Most Unices do
something like this, although sometimes it is a cron job.
David L. Mills wrote:
As for offset should be much larger than the error, be careful here.
By error I assume you mean what ntpq rv shows as jitter. The best case
No. By error I meant a measurement that neither ntpd nor chrony can
actually make, namely the difference between the user's
Unruh wrote:
I am sorry, but this is idiotic. The ONLY requirement should be that the
communication protocol is implimented properly and that the clock is
Only a very small part of the mandatory parts of the NTP specification
describe the wire formats. The pool is an NTP network, not an SNTP
David L. Mills wrote:
The NTP discipline is basically a type-II feedback control system. Your
training should recall exactly how such a loop works and how it responds
to a 50-ms step. Eleven seconds after NTP comes up the mitigation
You both have problems here.
Dave Mills: your problem
David L. Mills wrote:
5. This flap about the speed of convergence has become silly. Most of us
are less concerned about squeezing to the low microseconds in four
Have you done the market surveys to confirm this? I don't have the
resources or time to do that, but my impression from the sort
Danny Mayer wrote:
No, ntpd deliberately limits frequency changes to 500 PPM. That's hard
coded. You need to avoid using anything greater than that as Dave has
explained. That would be the reason why it taks ntpd longer to bring the
clock back to the right time.
Assuming that the static
Petri Kaukasoina wrote:
Basically, it stepped time with ntpdate, slept 100 seconds and stepped time
again with ntpdate. From the time adjustment, the script calculated the
drift value and put that to the drift file. Again, the time offset always
stays below 1 ms.
That has quite a lot of
Petri Kaukasoina wrote:
David Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That has quite a lot of similarity with what ntpd itself does if it is
cold started with iburst. The only big difference is that it uses 900,
Hmm, I can't see that. I put in only one good time source with iburst,
deleted
Jan Ceuleers wrote:
NIST is a US government institution; might there perhaps be different
laws or regulations elsewhere in the world? Does anyone among the
readership here know?
I used the US case as that is the one that has come up on the newsgroup,
but I assume there are similar rules
Folkert van Heusden wrote:
I would like to compare 2 NTP implementations. What would be the best
way?
The biggest problem is finding out the time on the machines without
using NTP. One approach is to use a simulator, but that assumes that
the simulator correctly represents clock
Unruh wrote:
He was refering solely to the NMEA signal not the PPS. Some GPS receovers
have no pps.
In general those are not suited to accurate time transfer, and ones with
PPS cost a lot less than the the commodity car navigation devices,
because they don't have loads of map data (the
Eric wrote:
I'm pleased to know I've provoked some new thoughts. If I understand your
post, burst mode was intended to get enough (lousy) samples into and
through the clock filters to allow for initial sync. Once the pipeline is
loaded no more extra polls are needed.
That's iburst,
David L. Mills wrote:
The result of the sort is usually the first entry on the list, but even
I thought this only gave the figure head peer, but that the actual clock
disciplining used a weighted average of some number of candidates aa well.
that can be temporarily displaced by the
Danny Mayer wrote:
Well of course. You are running Linux and losing interrupts. FreeBSD and
Lost interrupts are not the problem here and nothing about FreeBSD
should help (unless it runs the CPU permanently at full power).
___
questions mailing
Steve Kostecke wrote:
If you wish to have a specific feature in NTP you can add it yourself
using the source which is available for download from:
Whilst that is often an appropriate response, it isn't here. My
impression is that Unruh has already downloaded the source code and
studied. My
noosh wrote:
Thank you for kind attention. I have GPS hopf 6842 which is connected
Exactly which model? There are 7 different user manuals.
to the NTP Server. i want to connect these 2 device(GPS to NTP Server)
by serial port and then NTP Server should get the time from GPS. how
For the
Steve Kostecke wrote:
There's nothing stopping him from implementing what he considers to be a
solution himself. He could even distribute his modified version of NTP
to anyone who wanted to use it.
Why should he do that when something already exists, although it is not
technically NTP? As I
David L. Mills wrote:
David,
I don't know what you mean by figure head, but this is probably what
I meant that it is the one peer chosen to represent all the peers
actually used.
is intended. The statistics such as root delay, root dispersion and
related statistics are in fact inherited
. On the other hand, the evidence is mounting that chrony is
much better at handling non-random diurnal wander.
Dave
David Woolley wrote:
Steve Kostecke wrote:
There's nothing stopping him from implementing what he considers to be a
solution himself. He could even distribute his modified
Unruh wrote:
Worse than that . Only if the latest sample is the one with the min delay
is it chosen Otherwise it is not. You can go for 16 or more samples never
using any of thembefor one fits the criteion. (actually the samples are
aged as well-- ie the delay is increased as they get
Unruh wrote:
This is in the clock_filter algorithm. It selects the sample of the last 8
which has the lowest delay (suitably aged) If that sample is the most
Yes. That's what I am talking about. Specifically clock_filter in
ntp_proto.c.
recent, then it is actually used. Otherwise nothing
Unruh wrote:
Under ... is the line
dst[i]=peer-filter_delay[j]
Apologies, I missed that detail. I guess dst has changed its meaning
over time. (It doesn't really look right to me though, as there is a
sudden discontinuity as you cross the Allan Intercept.)
However, that doesn't change
David L. Mills wrote:
Harlan,
You make some good points. However, if folks want SNTP from here I think
they would prefer it in its own distribution rather than bundle it with
the huge NTP distribution. You can make a strong argument to host here
I don't think you are ever going to get
flyersix wrote:
internet time but my thought is if I only need to change the time on
the one server and then let the clients all go to it to update their
time.
ntpd isn't designed to cope with sudden step changes in time, as time
doesn't behave like that. It will cope, eventually, but can
Danny Mayer wrote:
There are plenty of use cases. I think that most of it should be done by
For tbe benefit of other readers, I believe that use case here is UML
jargon. The W3C uses the term with a different meaning.
the NTP Forum since there would be too much work to be done on a
Serge Bets wrote:
Only 256 seconds maximum, because the kind of slew (singleshot)
initiated by ntpd -q comes *above* the usual frequency correction
already annihiliating the motherboard error.
That assumes the use of the kernel time discipline, alhtough if you
don't have that, it is even
Harlan Stenn wrote:
For the general use case (LAN and/or WAN and/or jerky path) ntpd behaves
well.
We are talking typical rather than general cases. In the typical case,
1ms after 1 second is a reasonable expectation on a WAN, especially when
a site is restarting, e.g. after a power
Unruh wrote:
David Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Harlan Stenn wrote:
For the general use case (LAN and/or WAN and/or jerky path) ntpd behaves
well.
We are talking typical rather than general cases. In the typical case,
1ms after 1 second is a reasonable expectation on a WAN
noosh wrote:
how can i synchronize my server. i have set the server(anothor PC as a
server) to Local clock but and set my time if pc to GMT, but again
nothing is synchronized
The PC should be set to show the correct time for the timezone for which
you have configured it. I suspect you have
noosh wrote:
ntpq rv 12516
status=9014 reach, conf, 1 event, event_reach,
srcadr=MAIL, srcport=123, dstadr=192.168.4.18, dstport=123, leap=00,
stratum=2, precision=-6, rootdelay=31.250, rootdispersion=10932.175,
stratum 2 is inconsistent with your claim that the server is
synchronized to
Unruh wrote:
Any place where these different clock models is described?
And defined (what is tsc?)
tsc refers to the counter in recent Intel Architecture chips that counts
the processor clock cycles. It is somewhat vulnerable to power management.
Martin Burnicki wrote:
Wouldn't it make sense to adjust the time constant depending on the time
after startup, and/or the quality of the responses from the upstream
servers?
It does get adjusted. We are talking about the minimum value!
___
Hal Murray wrote:
20 ms sounds like a typical DSL link. That 1ms accuracy goes out
the window if you are doing a big download. (At least on my DSL
link.)
People don't generally do big downloads during the boot of a machine!
On a big network, the most likely reason for rebooting a
Thierry MARTIN wrote:
I have been trying acpi_pm clocksource for a few days now and the
results are quite good :-).
The time drift is less than 1s per day (I would even say less that 500ms
but this has to be confirmed) which is much better than the default
config with tsc (2s /day).
Harlan Stenn wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Johnson, John-P63914)
writes:
John-P Can ntpd be configured so that on start up it **immediately** trusts
John-P a time source (remote server or local clock) and begins serving
You really need to read most of the recent
Dean Weiten wrote:
As an example, let's say that there was a leap second to be added on
2008-02-10 at 23:59:59 (hmm, or is that 2008-02-11 at 00:00:00?). This
It would be added at 2007-12-31T23:59:60 or 2008-06-30T23:59:60. For a
deleted second, 2007-12-31T23:59:59 or 2008-06-30T23:59:59
Unruh wrote:
David Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Dean Weiten wrote:
As an example, let's say that there was a leap second to be added on
2008-02-10 at 23:59:59 (hmm, or is that 2008-02-11 at 00:00:00?). This
He is asking how it is added or subtracted.
His date of Feb 11
Unruh wrote:
David Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The date error is significant because, once one realizes there are only
two possible days a year, it becomes unimportant when the flags are set
Well, no, it is still important on those days. It does not occur every year
or every day
Unruh wrote:
there were actually one more second there, but UTC does not care.
Astronomers do not use UTC.
Astronomers use UT1 or higher. These DO have variable length seconds,
which I think was the original cause of confusion; I think they mixed up
UT1 with UTC.
UT1 is more closely based
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello,
I've recently been provided with 4 highly accurate ntp servers that
are using GPS as their primary synchronization source. Well, 2 of the
hosts are using GPS (stratum 1) and the other two are syncing to those
(stratum 2). I've been going around configuring
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
Testing ntpd and chrony using a local server or servers is not a very
realistic test of real world performance!
16ms is not a local server. It is a reasonable value for a corporate
internet connection for a medium to large company.
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
Set up a stratum 1 server using GPS or a cesium clock as a reference to
serve as a standard to measure with. Collect statistics for a month or so.
As I understand it, his time reference is considerably better than the
GPS based system that you describe here.
Tualha Khan wrote:
Now, the problem part. Under my test conditions, i have both servers
configured as follows:
I feel you are well out of your depth with this complexity of timing
topology.
#crypto pw abc123
#keysdir D:\Program Files (x86)\NTP\etc\keys
server
Danny Mayer wrote:
}
That comment is wrong. IIRC it can nominally be set at the last day of
The comment matches the code, which should be the most recent released
version. Someone has already said that it is a known bug, and I think
they said it is fixed in the
Unruh wrote:
A common misconception. The GPS people actually dynaically track the time
delivered by the sattelites and adjust their scales accordingly. Even if
they know nothing of GR, they would have discovered that the clocks were
running a bit fast and applied a correction fudgefactor. The
Evandro Menezes wrote:
This will cause NTP to start before W32TIME and thus NTP will take
over disciplining the Windows DC clock and the domain workstations
will still communicate with W32TIME.
If this works, I suspect it is ntpd that is serving the time and all
that w32time is doing is
Venu Gopal wrote:
Its clear that CPU is heavily loaded which might be
leading to loss of ticks. Yet to check the DMA status for
CPU loading doesn't cause lost timer interrupts. (More precisely
overruns.)
IDE DISK. I'll be out for about a week, after returning I'll
give few more stats
Michael B Allen wrote:
When installing an NTPD package on Linux would you expect it to work
by default or must one always be expected to modify the config?
I would not expect the config to have appropriate servers, so one would
always have to modify it. Including a valid server is likely to
Michael B Allen wrote:
The following config works:
driftfile /var/lib/ntp/ntp.drift
server 192.168.2.15 iburst
The clock was sync'd in a matter of seconds.
I kinda figured it would work since I have other servers that use it
and I've asked about this on this list before and was
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
This _is_ what I'd call the 'client part'. The server part would
assume or require that the clock is being disciplined by a client
implementation.
It needs to share rather more than the clock. Things like:
stratum
root distance
root dispersion
system peer
local
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
David Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
stratum
root distance
root dispersion
system peer
local reference time
leap bits
etc.
Yes. Those are all client-part statistics that could easily be made
available to a server-part
Unruh wrote:
that is why there is a proposed file system standard.
Log files in /var/log/ntp say.
Drift file in /etc/ntp.drift
config file in /etc/ntp.conf
I think they were referring to the Linux filesystem standard, and one of
the things that does is to move things out of /etc. In
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
Anybody who runs a packaged configuration deserves whatever happens to
him. Windows comes configured to use time.windows.com. AFAIK that's
Most people run packaged systems these days. When they go wrong, they
will not RTFM, or ask the packager. They come here,
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
An SNTP or local clock server might have to make some of them up.
System peer? Root dispersion?
A conforming SNTP server is required to have a locally attached
reference clock. The only other situation in which SNTP is allowed is
where only the client is SNTP, but
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
Could you say more about that? I realise that it's not as clean cut as
the division between an FTP client and server, and that NTP may be
better served by a model like for example the server always requiring
some interchangeable client module(s?) being plugged into it
Noob wrote:
I've been running ntpd 4.2.4 to synchronize my system clock using remote
stratum 2 servers as a reference. (The RTT to these servers is in the
30-50 ms range.) The accuracy is in the 1-2 ms range, based on the
reported offset.
Offset doesn't tell you the accuracy, it only
Martin Burnicki wrote:
Of course this would be possible, but the expected behaviour (for me, at
least) would be not to let bad guys doing bad things by default, i.e. not
let them change my time until explicitely given the permission to do so.
My impression was that the Windows workaround
Noob wrote:
Offset doesn't tell you the accuracy, it only gives you an idea of the
variability of the error. Theoretically, the error could be as much
as 15 to 25ms, plus the error from the stratum one to the stratum 2.
What metric should I consider to determine accuracy?
You cannot
Noob wrote:
Hello Bill,
(Your news client often adds an extraneous =20 suffix to quotes.)
That happens when you reply to a MIME Quoted-Printable posting that has
trailing spaces, using a user agent that doesn't understand MIME. Mine
will have trailing spaced so that suitable clients will
Unruh wrote:
Just looked it up. A bit bizarre-- power over the ethernet? The ethernet
has no power supply capability. Do you mean that you have to supply the
device with 60V running on one of the unused ethernet cable lines? Sounds
noisy to me.
I believe it is a relatively new, but very
His original message to the questions@ list is here:
https://lists.ntp.org/pipermail/questions/2008-March/017925.html
Thanks. Different error recovery for the invalid quoted printable, but
it still has the attachment stripped, because it was a binary.
Unruh wrote:
How does ntp actually discipline the local clock? I have a gps received
If you are using the kernel time discipline, which you should be using
for high accuracy, nptd doesn't discipline the clock; it is the kernel
code that does that, based on measurements provided by ntpd.
Ryan Malayter wrote:
This is not true in Windows 2003 and newer. Considering that Windows
Depends on the service pack. I believe it was finally fixed about two
years ago. The reference implementation is still better.
2000 sales ended in 2003, and mainstream support ended in 2005, I
think
Unruh wrote:
David Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you are using the kernel time discipline, which you should be using
for high accuracy, nptd doesn't discipline the clock; it is the kernel
code that does that, based on measurements provided by ntpd.
I do not think
Unruh wrote:
And then line 595-597
ntv.modes |= MOD_FREQUENCY;
ntv.freq = (int32)((clock_frequency +
drift_comp) * 65536e6);
This is immediately preceded by:
/*
* The frequency is set directly only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't get a Windows Client to sync to my NTP server. All Linux
clients work fine.
You didn't say that you were running a non-NTP compliant version of
w32time on the Windows system (it's illegally using symmetric active).
It is possible that your version of ntpd
Unruh wrote:
1 people all polling every 16 sec ( or 1 sec) There is nothing in ntp
itself that mandates a longer poll interval. In fact a shorter poll
interval makes ntp much more responsive to changes ( clock drifts, etc)
As I understand it, locking maxpoll low only slightly improves
Unruh wrote:
I expect that he means the offsets that ntp measures. NTP does NOT correct
I suspect that too.
random offsets. Ie, if there is noise source which makes the offsets vary
It averages them so as to reduce their effective size.
by 500usec ntp will not get rid of them. You will
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
You seem to be missing the point. Once the large errors have been
corrected, NTP goes on to the small errors. For that, it _needs_ a
longer poll interval. That this gives the server more air is a
happy coincidence, but not why it does it.
I don't believe it *needs*
Unruh wrote:
I have no idea what this means. ntp simply runs a second order feedback
network It does not do anything for large and small errors.
See sections G.4, G.5 and following of RFC 1305 (page 95 and onwards in
the PDF version). A couple of parameters are dynmacially adjusted to
Peter Sprenger wrote:
a simple question: Is there a difference between a ntp server and a sntp
server? I studied the RFC's, but found no evidence, that for the server
side there are differences.
NTP servers are always (give or take version and permission
considerations) acceptable to SNTP
1 - 100 of 1338 matches
Mail list logo
