On 8/23/05, krzaq <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am no NTP expert, but there may be nothing wrong with your configuartion. > NTP is a complex protocol. The machine has decided not to sync > with the requested server. It thinks that the provided server is inacurate > (the > machine's internal clock is more acurate).
Yes, I know it's a complex protocol. However, I didn't put the local clock (fudge?) on the configuration, hoping it would only take the time server into account. > Leave it running a couple of days and then see what happens. I am leaving them and seeing. Funny thing, my machine, which was in sync yesterday, is not in sync anymore today. The offset starts increasing and increasing until it's several minutes in difference. I've read something about ntp requiring CONFIG_SECURITY=y and CONFIG_SECURITY_CAPABILITIES=y on kernel 2.6. They are both activated on my machine. > The whole idea is to calculate the drift of the machines internal > clock. NTP will > not trust specified timeservers blindly. > > Frankly I think that ntp works best with several timeservers. Yes, I could put all those time servers on all config files, but is this the best approach for a network? I thought I could let one of them synchronize to several servers, and let all others synchronize from this one. The jitter is minimum, as they are on the same network. > If you want your local machines to blindly set the date to your local > timeserver > try nptdate instead. This is what I'm trying to avoid. ntpd is a cleaner solution, as it records the clock drift instead of just updating the clock every X hours. In fact, most 'cron solutions' I see are ugly workarounds. Thanks for the reply. -- Bruno Lustosa, aka Lofofora | Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Network Administrator/Web Programmer | ICQ: 1406477 Rio de Janeiro - Brazil | -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
