Rick, any advice offered is never a waste of time!  Unfortunately MS claims, 
NTP will just work.  LIES! ;)

specifically this is what I'm getting:
r...@host-name:~# ntpdate <ip address>
29 Sep 10:31:49 ntpdate[3946]: no server suitable for synchronization found

which from my investigations is what I would get given MS's crappy time deamon.

thanks anyways!

Mike
--- On Tue, 9/29/09, Rick White <[email protected]> wrote:

> From: Rick White <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: using a MS SNTP server for linux
> To: [email protected]
> Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 10:10 AM
> No wisdom here, but idle googling
> turned up this TechNet document on the subject:
> Appendix H: Configuring Time Services for a Heterogeneous
> UNIX and Windows Environment 
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb463171..aspx
> 
> Some solutions involve editing the Windows registry, which
> is OTQ, but the last section:
> http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb463171.aspx#EAAA
> might possibly be relevant.
> 
> If this is completely off-base, sorry to waste your time.
> 
> Rick
> 
> --- On Tue, 9/29/09, Mike Raley <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> 
> > From: Mike Raley <[email protected]>
> > Subject: using a MS SNTP server for linux
> > To: [email protected]
> > Date: Tuesday, September 29, 2009, 9:44 AM
> > Morning all,
> > 
> > I figure I know the unfortunate answer to my question,
> but
> > I'm hoping the wisdom of this crowd will once again
> prove me
> > wrong.  I have an Ubuntu server which needs to use a
> > Windows 2003 Domain Controller as it's authoritative
> time
> > server.  Yes, I know, this is an abomination, but in
> > this case 100% unavoidable.  It's either this or
> wildly
> > off on time (bad).  Has anyone actually gotten this
> to
> > work?  Using NTP is out as MS uses SNTP (broken as
> > usual).  I've tried msntp also to no avail. 
> > Gladly taking suggestions!
> > 
> > Oh, in addition, I do not even have login rights to
> the DC,
> > much less Administrator privileges, so changing that
> is out
> > of the question.
> > 
> > Thanks!
> > Mike
> > 
> > 
> >       
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> 



Reply via email to