Rob wrote:
Uwe Klein <u...@klein-habertwedt.de> wrote:
Abu Abdullah wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:41 AM, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added
to the BlackLists <Null@blacklist.anitech-systems.invalid> wrote:
unruh wrote:
He has gotten himself totally confused about what his
real job and desires are, it seems to me.
Perhaps its something like, he needs to provide ntp to the
pool due to really high vendor zone useage by his appliances?
Still sounds like two machines would be better than one.
Both are important for us. I can conclude from all the responses that there
is no an out of the box solution for the same. I need to have separate OS
(or zone).
Look into changeroot prisons.
Some (Linux) distributions already run ntpd in a change rooted prison.
Should be easy to adapt that to a dual setup.
This isolates only the filesystem, not the network sockets.
Het described a problem with the sharing of the network sockets.
Is there an uncircumventable need to share?
I would add a set of IP's to the loopback or link-local interface.
Have instance A of ntp use 169.254.0.22
Have instance B of ntp use 169.254.0.44
as access to a common network.
voila?
uwe
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
