One would think that, wouldn't one? However, it turns out that there are ramifications to adding one or more new servers to the current mix that are not obvious. The up shot is that in certain cases the new guys are preferred over the old ones, which leads to the problem that the guys you tagged as keepers get booted off before the new guys have proved themselves.
Brian Utterback Jason Rabel wrote: > I don't think that it would have to conflict with the function of NTP. Just > keep the chosen time source and any secondary sources, dump the rest and > re-query adding the new IPs for those that were removed. > > Jason > > >> The thought had occurred to me. However Dave seems to be against >> anything except ntpd deciding what constitutes the best set >> of servers. I even had a hook in the code base to expose this >> information just for this reason, but it got yanked out when the >> preempt code went in. >> >> >>> Jason Rabel wrote: >>> >>> Brian, >>> >>> Perhaps rather than trying to implement in NTP itself via some new >>> command(s) you could make a helper app that communicates with NTP in a >>> similar manner to ntpq & ntpdc? It could then run as its own daemon or >>> > maybe > >>> even just a cron job. >>> > > _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
