Eugen COCA wrote: > After severeal hours things looks like this: > > ntpq> pe > remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter > ============================================================================== > GPS_NMEA(1) .GPS. 0 l 85h 64 0 0.000 0.000 0.004 > ptbtime1.ptb.de .PTB. 1 u 57 256 377 56.491 -0.062 0.132 > ntps1-1.cs.tu-b .PPS. 1 u 116 256 377 57.161 0.827 0.225 > ntp-p1.obspm.fr .1PPS. 1 u 65 256 373 57.027 0.541 5.938 > gps-2.mit.edu .GPS. 1 u 125 256 377 133.034 2.194 0.270 > oPPS(1) .PPS. 0 l 10 16 377 0.000 0.000 0.004 > ntp2.usv.ro .PPS. 1 u 61 64 377 0.198 0.003 0.007 > ntp3.usv.ro .PPS. 1 u 14 64 377 0.240 0.003 0.005 > ptbtime2.ptb.de .PTB. 1 u 33 256 377 55.610 1.183 0.334 > gps-1.mit.edu .GPS. 1 u 84 256 377 132.648 2.118 0.369 > > > Is there anybody able to emmit an oppinion if this configuration (with > two prefer weywords) is good enough for a stable server ? >
I would drop gps-1.mit.edu and gps-2.mit.edu. Their delays are high enough that they are unlikely to be selected as a synchronization source. Any benefit you might gain is probably too small to justify using them. Is something wrong with your GPS? It appears to have been inoperative for 85 hours! I don't know about two "prefer" keywords. I had the impression that only one was supported but I could be wrong. Other than that, it looks fine to me! _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
