Unruh wrote: > > Yes, that is apparently what he wants. Why, none of us know. But he is > running into the problem that ntp wants to alter the clock by more than > 500PPM, and that ntp, instead of just clamping to 500PPM and correcting > your 47 min over the next 90000 min (2 months) ntpd just dies and does > nothing but leave the clock to wend it own useless way.
I see no real evidence that it has died. The OP is being confused because he is using a tool intended for the kernel discipline when he's forced ntpd to disable that. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
