Per Hedeland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Did you lower the maxpoll on the server that is actually providing time > to those two? Don't do that, it prevents ntpd from fine-tuning the > disciplining of the system clock.
<insert sheepish "yes" answer here...> > Lowering it on the peer setup - which is not intended to provide > time to either of those two hosts, and so could usefully have > 'noselect' (if it is available in your version and works with > "peer", I haven't tried that) - is just so you can have a "recent" > value for the offset. It would be a good idea to lose the LOCAL > clock though, it's totally useless for your purpose. Here is what I have now that I've dropped the minpoll from the server and dropped LOCAL: peer bl480c2 minpoll 3 maxpoll 4 iburst server 10.208.0.1 iburst server 10.0.0.1 server 10.202.1.1 I just restarted that on both ends (adjusting peer accordingly) and will see how that settles-in. thanks, rick jones -- oxymoron n, commuter in a gas-guzzling luxury SUV with an American flag 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
