Arnold Schekkerman wrote:
On 03/01/2014 10:47 AM, Rob Janssen wrote:
Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote:
On Fri, Feb 28, 2014 at 6:07 AM, Philip Gladstone <
[email protected]> wrote:
Ok. I understand now. It looks as though the server would respond when
the time wasn't known. It ought to say stratum 16, but maybe it doesn't.
It does, but it also says the time is off by 34 years.
Maybe it is a bug in the monitoring system. stratum 16 means unsynchronized,
the
If I remember right, both + and - leap second flag set means 'no valid time',
while
stratum 16 just means 'stratum 16' (which is usually configured as the local
clock).
I looked that up in the RFC before I wrote it.
Stratum (stratum): 8-bit integer representing the stratum, with
values defined in Figure 11.
+--------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| Value | Meaning |
+--------+-----------------------------------------------------+
| 0 | unspecified or invalid |
| 1 | primary server (e.g., equipped with a GPS receiver) |
| 2-15 | secondary server (via NTP) |
| 16 | unsynchronized |
| 17-255 | reserved |
+--------+-----------------------------------------------------+
but it should not look at the actual time returned.
For the monitoring graph, that is no problem. Time graph and inclusion in the
pool
are different things (though related of course).
I would say for plotting purposes it should be treated the same as "no response at
all".
Rob
_______________________________________________
pool mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
