-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


The Friday 2007-12-07 at 03:31 -0500, Aaron Kulkis wrote:

>  Your logs says that when NTP looses the network connection,

 Yes.

>  it is syncing to the CMOS clock.

 No.

 You are confusing the system clock with the CMOS clock - which is running
 fine, by the way. I checked.


Your original posting has part of a log which
clearly indicates a sync to a strata 10 source, and
all of your problems started right after that.



+ 27 Nov 15:31:56 ntpd[12905]: synchronized to 91.121...., stratum 2
+ 27 Nov 15:38:31 ntpd[12905]: synchronized to 192.33...., stratum 2
+ 27 Nov 15:39:25 ntpd[12905]: synchronized to 195.55...., stratum 2
+ 27 Nov 15:39:40 ntpd[12905]: synchronized to LOCAL(0), stratum 10
+ 27 Nov 16:22:22 ntpd[12905]: synchronized to 84.88...., stratum 2
+ 27 Nov 16:22:22 ntpd[12905]: time correction of 1678 seconds
  exceeds sanity limit (1000); set clock manually to the correct
  UTC time.



The CMOS clock is defined as a strata 10 time source
in the ntp.conf file in the RPM package.

Which entry is the cmos clock? This?

server 127.127.1.0             # local clock (LCL)
fudge  127.127.1.0 stratum 10  # LCL is unsynchronized

clockopt.html:

] The fudge command is used to provide additional information for ] individual clock drivers and normally follows immediately after the ] server command. The address argument specifies the clock address. The ] refid and stratum options control can be used to override the defaults ] for the device. There are two optional device-dependent time offsets and ] four flags that can be included in the fudge command as well.

That clock is not the CMOS clock. It is the CPU, system clock, which NTP uses as a selfstrapping clock when it loses the network clock.

And it is already disabled: no difference.


 More symptoms: the problem started the very same day I installed 10.3.
 it's in the logs.

interesting.

Was your your ntp.conf file change at that time -- either
by the upgrade or by you?

Nop, not touched at all, that day at least. Later, yes, of course, trying to solve this problem.

- -- Cheers,
       Carlos E. R.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFHWUObtTMYHG2NR9URAtxhAJsHy5qxQGxOFq6V/OEj1c8m6jZlHQCfZEOS
JBOZIy5XrcJ3wNur1u94YKY=
=mbOp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to