Per Hedeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, if you want a reasonably accurate estimate on the time > difference between two hosts on a LAN, it's probably a better idea > to ask ntpd to provide that directly rather than comparing their > offsets to a server that is 50 ms removed (presumably across a WAN) > and that may not have been polled for the last 17 minutes.
Yeah, that one gets picked I suspect thanks to its stratum. I've contemplated removing it from the equation. > I.e. you could set up the hosts to peer with each other, possibly > with a lowered maxpoll and/or 'noselect', which would have each give > their estimated offset to the other directly in the ntpq output. I > have no idea *how* accurate that would be in absolute terms, but it > just has to be "better". I will see about giving that a try. I suppose I could also try to see if I can get the powers that be to spring for a GPS18 and see if I can indeed get signal in the machine room(s) of interest. Speaking of which, I was just at the garmin website, and seems they now have a GPS18 5HZ in addition to the regular GPS18. Is there any benefit to the extra four pulses per second? rick jones -- oxymoron n, Hummer H2 with California Save Our Coasts and Oceans plates these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :) feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH... _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
