In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Steve Kostecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >On 2007-03-26, Per Hedeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> "Maarten Wiltink" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> [With orphan mode] You're still picking a single clock to follow, >>>only now it's a random one. >> >> I guess this is correct for the current implementation, though there >> ought to be a potential for an "intelligent" selection - e.g. taking >> the drift value into consideration to reduce the risk of this problem: > >How can you measure drift without an accurate reference (e.g. a >timebase) ?
Well, I was mainly thinking of the case where you have orphan mode set up as a fallback to external servers - then the drift value that has been calculated while external servers were reachable is a good "quality indicator". But I assume the non-"masters" in an orphan-only setup calculate a drift relative to the "master" - in that case, if you're happy with the drift of the "master", you will be least unhappy if the host with the lowest drift relative to the departed "master" is chosen as the new "master". --Per Hedeland [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
