"Skunk Worx" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Steve Kostecke wrote: [...] >> The undisciplined local clock (127.127.1.x) is not appropriate for >> this purpose. > > Yes it is. This is an isolated test environment, and I am following > the NTP documents, adhering to the warnings, and insuring I affect > no one else.
(Some) people here have a way of getting religious about what NTP should be made to do and what is (horrified face) "inappropriate". NTP can do several things for you. Some of these things _are_ lost without proper reference clocks. Like the length of a second; it will vary with the temperature around a local clock oscillator. There are people who genuinely don't care about this, and other people who genuinely don't grasp that. [...] >> Then why are you telling your undisciplined local clock to use >> "NIST" as its ref-id? > > This was taken directly from the NTP documents for using an > undisciplined local time source (for testing, etc.) : > > http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/drivers/driver1.html Go back and read it better. You may be following the docs as stated above, but you did this without understanding them. That page explains how you could synchronise a local clock to NIST using means outside NTP. _Then_ it would be reasonable to fudge its refid to NIST. Not if you simply let it run free. Groetjes, Maarten Wiltink _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
