Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > Danny Mayer wrote: > >> Richard B. Gilbert wrote: >> >> >>> My point was that, in a properly working system, ntpd should not >>> need to "reset" the clock once it has been synchronized. Let's >>> look at reasons why this might happen: >>> a. ntpd selected a new server for synchronization. The selected >>> server's time differed from the client's by more than the step >>> threshold. >> >> Informational. The new server is neither right nor wrong, just a >> different one and was different by a large enough amount. >> >> >> > If two of the servers I am using ever differ by 128 milliseconds, I > think I ought to know about it. I would then consider replacing one > or even both of them. Whichever one was wrong, I would not want to > rely on if I really needed to know the correct time!
Agreed! There should be no need for a step when any of my systems is operating normally. David _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
