Danny Mayer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Don't do that. You need at *least* 4 servers listed here. Two is very > bad since you have very few ways of telling which clock is better. peer > is useful for comparing how other systems are doing but it will > sometimes discipline your system clock if nothing better is available. > You should use iburst on all lines to speed up initial convergence to a > stable state.
OK, I will see about doing that on the 2nd. > If this is one of your neverending testing workbenches consider > getting one of HP's clocks (or is it owned by Agilent now?). Even > better, a cesium clock! The clocks went to Agilent, whom I believe sold that part of the business to another entity. rick jones -- No need to believe in either side, or any side. There is no cause. There's only yourself. The belief is in your own precision. - Jobert 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
