David Woolley wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Alexandre Carrausse <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Hal Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Using a single system as the master seems like a reasonable approach >>> to me. It's simple so you can understand it. Just fixup the time > > Definitely. Peering was never intended to be use for unsychronised > networks. It was not designed for creating a consensus time out of > nothing. For a start, local clocks are normally clocks of last > resort, so you would have to prefer them, but even then, the whole > system would almost certainly wander in frequency and could end up > with some machines exceeding the 500ppm maximum correctable frequency > offset. >
Dave's new schemes allow this to work very well. It requires manycasting but it also needs the newer code. > Assuming that the NT port supports remote configuration, I would suggest > enabling that when you first stop the master server. You can then fudge > the correction, to trim the frequency, without having to stop the server > again. > I does in the same way as Unix versions but that's going away in the future. Danny _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
