Re: [ntp:questions] Strange NTP problem on AMD Geode LX cards.
On Saturday 03 October 2009 02:58:03 David Hawkins wrote: > Hi > I'm using a number of XTX form factor AMD Geode LX (500Mhz) cards at work. > (Cannot get to news at work, and have left memory stick with details at > work ! so apologies for missing info !) > They are running Sues Linux from a read only flash drive, all identical > clones other than host names and IP addresses. > > Most of the time ntp runs with no problems and will lock to a local server > with less than 5ms offset, and the drift file comes out at between about > -20 and -40. > > But now and again a system will not get a stable lock, and on investigation > the drift file is at the maximum of -500. > When I first encountered this I assumed it was a hardware problem with the > processor card, just a one off, but now have seen this on around 10 systems > out of 30 or so I have tested. > When a system shows this fault, powering the unit on and off will almost > always solve it, the unit synchronising to the server after a couple of > hours with a drift file setting of -20 to -40 like the others. > I'm more of a hardware engineer than software, but have now run out things > to look at to solve this problem. > > I have considered / done the following > > * The drift file is stored in the ram drive /dev/shm so always starts at > 00.000 when the system is started. > * On a system not locking stopping ntp and restarting having set the drift > file to -28, results in the drift going back to -400 over a couple of > hours - so not some odd start-up state that confuses the control loop. > * The processor card uses a PCI clock generator capable of spread spectrum > output, this is always enabled and not controllable from the BIOS - the > chip has two settings off and on with a -0.5% spread. Have verified with a > spectrum analyser that the cards with good lock and bad lock, have the > spread spectrum option enabled. > * The cards seem to be more lightly to exhibit the problem when they have > been turned off for a day or so. > * Power saving modes of the processor are enabled, but understand that the > timing is done using the counter timer in the Geode companion chip that > runs at a constant 14.13MHz regardless of the power state:- also as all > running exactly the same code why would some have problems and not others > ? > > Sorry rather random thoughts but I have now run out of things to look at, > have you ever seen a problem like this and even better found a solution ? > > Dave Dave, did you play around with adjtimex? I once had a machine who's internal clock was so horribly skewed that it would never sync. Tweaking the parms with adjtimex made the clock more stable and NTP could suddenly sync. Best regards, Frans > > > ___ > questions mailing list > questions@lists.ntp.org > https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions > ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] ntpq -p show refid as .INIT. even my NTP Servers are synchronized properly.
Andhu wrote: > On Oct 5, 12:19 am, Steve Kostecke wrote: >> On 2009-10-04, Andhu wrote: >> >> [snip: time island with primary and secondary time servers] >> >>> Problem: >>> When i execute ntpq -p the output shows refid as .INIT. ? >> Where are you running this command? >> >> It may be that you are not allowing enough time to elapse after ntpd is >> started. >> >> For ntp-stable using ntpd's defaults a server which is using the >> Undisciplined Local Clock (127.127.1.x) as its time "source" will not be >> able to serve time to others until it has been running for approximately >> 200 seconds (3 1/3 minutes). This time may be reduced to approximately >> 50 seconds using the minpoll command. >> >>> How to resolve this? >> Fix your configuration and/or allow ntpd to run for a long enough time >> before using 'ntpq -p'. >> >>> Why it is showing? >> We won't be able to tell you that until we see a sample configuration >> for one of your servers and one of your clients. >> >>> Tell me how much time it will take to synchronize to the secondary >>> server when primary goes down? >> The "client ntpd" will keep the primary server as its "sys_peer" (in >> other words, will continue to be synced to the primary server) until >> that primary server becomes unreachable. >> >> It takes a maximum of 8 polls for a time source to become unreachable. >> >> For unicast (or "client/server") associations, depending on the poll >> interval being used by the client ntpd it will take somewhere between >> 8.5 minutes and 2.27 hours for a remote time server to become >> unreachable. >> >> -- >> Steve Kostecke >> NTP Public Services Project -http://support.ntp.org/ > > hi, > > When i execute ntpq -p the output shows refid as .INIT. ? > > Where are you running this command? > > I am executing this command in NTP Server and in my NTP Clients. > > > It may be that you are not allowing enough time to elapse after ntpd > is > started. > > So you mean to say that we need to execute the command ntpq -p after > the NTP server get stable? > > As i mentioned it was in production and these NTP Servers were running > for very long time. And all my NTP Servers > are getting synchronized from the Primary NTP Server. > > I found in some documents that this .INIT. is the kiss code error and > it means that my associaition server is not synchronized for the first > time. > > For ntp-stable using ntpd's defaults a server which is using the > Undisciplined Local Clock (127.127.1.x) as its time "source" will not > be > able to serve time to others until it has been running for > approximately > 200 seconds (3 1/3 minutes). This time may be reduced to > approximately > 50 seconds using the minpoll command. > > From the above you mean to say if the source is the Undisciplined > Local Clock (127.127.1.x) it wont serve time until it has been > running for 3 1/3 minutes. > > But my NTP Server is running for very long time. But still am getting > the refid as .INIT. when i execute ntpq -p command. > > And regarding the time interval of ntpd client from changing the > synchronization from Primary to Secondary when the primary becaome > unreachable . As per you it will take maximum of 8 polls but it is > taking more than 1 hours to change it secondary NTP server if the > primary goes down. > > with regards > A.Aravind > As he said, please give cofiguration details, ntp.conf examples from primary server, secondary server and client. From logs last month where I struggled to find a 4 day period when I'd not lost internet connection there was at least one outage of 6 hrs but ntpd hardly noticed (polls on servers are up at 68m and 137m for selected sources). servers here have server 127.127.1.0 fudge 127.127.1.0 stratum 12 David ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Strange NTP problem on AMD Geode LX cards.
"Unruh" wrote in message news:lv9ym.47716$ph1.37...@edtnps82... > E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists writes: >> Unruh wrote: >>> It is an unshielded efficient radiator, the motherboard. >>> Unshielded because the manufacturer does not want to spend >>> the money to shield it. > > >Do you buy / use equipment that you have decided are the source > > of objectionable levels of EMI? > > I do not have the equipment to measure the radiation given off. > The manufacturers do. If you tell me how I can get the information > as to how much it emits, I will certainly include that in my decision > process. The motherboard that costs an unexplained ten dollars more than the competition _may_ have spent it on shielding. Guess how many people will buy it? Remember, by your own admission, _you_ _cannot tell_. (Lying on the box? Who'd do such a horrible thing?) Groetjes, Maarten Wiltink ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Strange NTP problem on AMD Geode LX cards.
"Maarten Wiltink" writes: >"Unruh" wrote in message >news:lv9ym.47716$ph1.37...@edtnps82... >> E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists > writes: >>> Unruh wrote: It is an unshielded efficient radiator, the motherboard. Unshielded because the manufacturer does not want to spend the money to shield it. >> >> >Do you buy / use equipment that you have decided are the source >> > of objectionable levels of EMI? >> >> I do not have the equipment to measure the radiation given off. >> The manufacturers do. If you tell me how I can get the information >> as to how much it emits, I will certainly include that in my decision >> process. >The motherboard that costs an unexplained ten dollars more than the >competition _may_ have spent it on shielding. Guess how many people >will buy it? Remember, by your own admission, _you_ _cannot tell_. >(Lying on the box? Who'd do such a horrible thing?) That is why one has regulations. >Groetjes, >Maarten Wiltink ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Strange NTP problem on AMD Geode LX cards.
"Unruh" wrote in message news:_mmym.46645$db2.5...@edtnps83... > "Maarten Wiltink" writes: >> "Unruh" wrote in message >> news:lv9ym.47716$ph1.37...@edtnps82... >>> E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists >>> writes: Unruh wrote: > It is an unshielded efficient radiator, the motherboard. > Unshielded because the manufacturer does not want to spend > the money to shield it. >>> Do you buy / use equipment that you have decided are the source of objectionable levels of EMI? >>> >>> I do not have the equipment to measure the radiation given off. >>> The manufacturers do. If you tell me how I can get the information >>> as to how much it emits, I will certainly include that in my >>> decision process. > >> The motherboard that costs an unexplained ten dollars more than the >> competition _may_ have spent it on shielding. Guess how many people >> will buy it? Remember, by your own admission, _you_ _cannot tell_. > >> (Lying on the box? Who'd do such a horrible thing?) > > That is why one has regulations. Indeed. Just imagine the radio interference that e.g. motherboards might cause if there were no rules limiting it. (As another, very practical, example of well-intentioned regulations, there is the 'CE' mark featured on products that should be safe to use. There is a test to determine if your product may carry it. OR - you can simply slap it on and wait to be challenged. Then, if the challenger proves you don't deserve the mark, you have to take it off. A procedure officially sanctioned as 'self-declaration'.) Tebrgwrf, Maarten Wiltink ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Strange NTP problem on AMD Geode LX cards.
Maarten Wiltink writes: > As another, very practical, example of well-intentioned regulations, > there is the 'CE' mark featured on products that should be safe to > use. There is a test to determine if your product may carry it. > OR - you can simply slap it on and wait to be challenged. Then, if > the challenger proves you don't deserve the mark, you have to take > it off. A procedure officially sanctioned as 'self-declaration'. Do that with the UL mark in the USA and you will be the defendant is a series of painful and expensive lawsuits. Plus bad publicity. Plus possible criminal prosecution for fraud. -- John Hasler jhas...@newsguy.com Dancing Horse Hill Elmwood, WI USA ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
[ntp:questions] Unable to get time from the internet using NTP
I have to setup a couple of servers that will get their time from the internet. I have following the steps listed at http://www.pool.ntp.org/ The following is the contents of ntp.conf: driftfile /drift/ntp.drift server 0.us.pool.ntp.org server 1.us.pool.ntp.org server 2.us.pool.ntp.org server 3.us.pool.ntp.org When I start NTP, the start up hands with ntpdate trying to get the time from the servers. I have verified that the server names do verify in DNS. Do I need to pick a different set of servers? Any idea/suggestions would be greatly appreciatd. Thanks ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Unable to get time from the internet using NTP
Dew Wrobel wrote: > I have to setup a couple of servers that will get their time from the > internet. [...] > When I start NTP, the start up hands with ntpdate trying to get the > time from the servers. I have verified that the server names do > verify in DNS. > > Do I need to pick a different set of servers? Any idea/suggestions > would be greatly appreciatd. Dew, A few questions to help figure out what is going on. What error messages, if any, are emitted? How do you determine that it isn't working? Can you manually execute ntpdate pool.ntp.org ? If ntpdate succeeds where ntpd itself fails, the culprit is most likely your firewall configuration. You need to permit both inbound and outbound traffic on UDP port 123. If you conclude that things aren't working from ntpq -p, have you waited long enough for ntpd to achieve synchronisation? Without iburst on your server lines it can take quite a while for sync to be acquired. Cheers, Jan ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Unable to get time from the internet using NTP
On 2009-10-05, Dew Wrobel wrote: > When I start NTP, the start up hands with ntpdate trying to get the > time from the servers. I have verified that the server names do > verify in DNS. Please run 'ntpdate -q pool.ntp.org' _and_ 'ntpdate -u pool.ntp.org' on the command-line and post the results here. You may need to open your firewall to allow return packets from the remote time servers on port 123/UDP. -- Steve Kostecke NTP Public Services Project - http://support.ntp.org/ ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Unable to get time from the internet using NTP
Dew Wrobel writes: >I have to setup a couple of servers that will get their time from the >internet. >I have following the steps listed at http://www.pool.ntp.org/ >The following is the contents of ntp.conf: >driftfile /drift/ntp.drift >server 0.us.pool.ntp.org >server 1.us.pool.ntp.org >server 2.us.pool.ntp.org >server 3.us.pool.ntp.org >When I start NTP, the start up hands with ntpdate trying to get the "start up hands"-- this means what? And you should not start with ntpdate. ntpd -g does essentially the same thing. >time from the servers. I have verified that the server names do >verify in DNS. No. Each time they are called via dns you get a different IP address. It is a huge round robin. >Do I need to pick a different set of servers? Any idea/suggestions >would be greatly appreciatd. What is the problem? >Thanks ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Unable to get time from the internet using NTP
Dew Wrobel wrote: > I have to setup a couple of servers that will get their time from the > internet. > > I have following the steps listed at http://www.pool.ntp.org/ > > The following is the contents of ntp.conf: > > driftfile /drift/ntp.drift > server 0.us.pool.ntp.org > server 1.us.pool.ntp.org > server 2.us.pool.ntp.org > server 3.us.pool.ntp.org > > When I start NTP, the start up hands with ntpdate trying to get the > time from the servers. I have verified that the server names do > verify in DNS. > > Do I need to pick a different set of servers? Any idea/suggestions > would be greatly appreciatd. > > Thanks Ntpdate is "deprecated". Perhaps you should eliminate ntpdate and start ntpd with the "-g" option. This option tells ntpd to find out what time it is by querying the servers and then setting that time. The results should be similar either way but ntpd -g is the documented and supported way to set the time at startup. If you add "iburst" to each server line in your ntp.conf you should get a faster startup. Iburst will cause ntpd to send an initial burst of eight requests at two second intervals. The replies fill the "filter pipeline" and should get you synchronized a little faster. Ntpd will need about ten hours to achieve the accuracy it's capable of. Initially you should have a reasonable approximation of the correct time; e.g. within, say, 100 milliseconds. The longer it runs the better the time will get. If you can possibly avoid rebooting and/or restarting NTPD you will get much better time. ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Unable to get time from the internet using NTP
On Oct 5, 2:17 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" wrote: > Dew Wrobel wrote: > > I have to setup a couple of servers that will get their time from the > > internet. > > > I have following the steps listed athttp://www.pool.ntp.org/ > > > The following is the contents of ntp.conf: > > > driftfile /drift/ntp.drift > > server 0.us.pool.ntp.org > > server 1.us.pool.ntp.org > > server 2.us.pool.ntp.org > > server 3.us.pool.ntp.org > > > When I start NTP, the start up hands with ntpdate trying to get the > > time from the servers. I have verified that the server names do > > verify in DNS. > > > Do I need to pick a different set of servers? Any idea/suggestions > > would be greatly appreciatd. > > > Thanks > > Ntpdate is "deprecated". Perhaps you should eliminate ntpdate and start > ntpd with the "-g" option. This option tells ntpd to find out what time > it is by querying the servers and then setting that time. > > The results should be similar either way but ntpd -g is the documented > and supported way to set the time at startup. > > If you add "iburst" to each server line in your ntp.conf you should get > a faster startup. Iburst will cause ntpd to send an initial burst of > eight requests at two second intervals. The replies fill the "filter > pipeline" and should get you synchronized a little faster. > > Ntpd will need about ten hours to achieve the accuracy it's capable of. > Initially you should have a reasonable approximation of the correct > time; e.g. within, say, 100 milliseconds. The longer it runs the > better the time will get. > > If you can possibly avoid rebooting and/or restarting NTPD you will get > much better time. The call to ntpdate is part of the RC script that comes with the OS. I checked an option under /etc/sysconfig/ntp to not call ntpdate on start. I found a web page about debugging NTP and came across running ntpq with various parameters. here is the output from that. I can't help and wondering, based on the as option, it sounds that the time servers being used are reject. Aside from what servers I'm using, I don't have to do anything else, do I? ntpq> pe remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter == ntp1.truetime.c .INIT. 16 u- 6400.000 0.000 0.001 zinc.ops.tns.it .INIT. 16 u- 6400.000 0.000 0.001 ntp2.usno.navy. .INIT. 16 u- 6400.000 0.000 0.001 ntpq> as ind assID status conf reach auth condition last_event cnt === 1 53536 8000 yes yes nonereject 2 53537 8000 yes yes nonereject 3 53538 8000 yes yes nonereject ntpq> rv 53536 assID=53536 status=8000 unreach, conf, no events, srcadr=ntp1.truetime.com, srcport=123, dstadr=172.21.100.26, dstport=123, leap=11, stratum=16, precision=-20, rootdelay=0.000, rootdispersion=0.000, refid=INIT, reach=000, unreach=0, hmode=3, pmode=0, hpoll=6, ppoll=10, flash=00 ok, keyid=0, ttl=0, offset=0.000, delay=0.000, dispersion=16000.000, jitter=0.001, reftime=. Thu, Feb 7 2036 1:28:16.000, org=. Thu, Feb 7 2036 1:28:16.000, rec=. Thu, Feb 7 2036 1:28:16.000, xmt=. Thu, Feb 7 2036 1:28:16.000, filtdelay= 0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.00, filtoffset=0.000.000.000.000.000.000.00 0.00, filtdisp= 16000.0 16000.0 16000.0 16000.0 16000.0 16000.0 16000.0 16000.0 ntpq> ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Unable to get time from the internet using NTP
"Unruh" <> wrote in message news:jkqym.46679$db2.37...@edtnps83... > Dew Wrobel <> writes: [] >>When I start NTP, the start up hands with ntpdate trying to get the > > "start up hands"-- this means what? My guess was "start up hangs". David ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Unable to get time from the internet using NTP
On Oct 5, 3:40 pm, "David J Taylor" wrote: > "Dew Wrobel" <> wrote in message > > news:2b93fbec-9896-4eaf-a2b8-d8379be27...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... > [] > > > ntpq> pe > > remote refid st t when poll reach delay > > offset jitter > > == > > ntp1.truetime.c .INIT. 16 u - 64 0 0.000 > > 0.000 0.001 > > zinc.ops.tns.it .INIT. 16 u - 64 0 0.000 > > 0.000 0.001 > > ntp2.usno.navy. .INIT. 16 u - 64 0 0.000 > > 0.000 0.001 > > A reach of 0 means you aren't contacting the servers. > > Check your firewall. > > Cheers, > David I do not have the firewall enabled on the server. Nor is there one between me and the internet. Alright, I'm a bit confused ( doesnt' take much ). I ran the following tcpdump command, to verify that NTP is making attempts out of the server tcpdump port 123 I logged into the server again via another session and restarted NTP. No output was generated from the tcpdump command. Either I didn't run the tcpdump command with the correct options OR NTP requests are not leaving the server at all. I do not have the firewall running, it's currently disabled. Should I try to reboot the server and try again? ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Unable to get time from the internet using NTP
"Dew Wrobel" <> wrote in message news:2b93fbec-9896-4eaf-a2b8-d8379be27...@j19g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... [] > ntpq> pe > remote refid st t when poll reach delay > offset jitter > == > ntp1.truetime.c .INIT. 16 u- 6400.000 > 0.000 0.001 > zinc.ops.tns.it .INIT. 16 u- 6400.000 > 0.000 0.001 > ntp2.usno.navy. .INIT. 16 u- 6400.000 > 0.000 0.001 A reach of 0 means you aren't contacting the servers. Check your firewall. Cheers, David ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Unable to get time from the internet using NTP
On 2009-10-05, Dew Wrobel wrote: > ntpq> pe > remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter > > ntp1.truetime.c .INIT. 16 u- 640 0.000 0.000 0.001 > zinc.ops.tns.it .INIT. 16 u- 640 0.000 0.000 0.001 > ntp2.usno.navy. .INIT. 16 u- 640 0.000 0.000 0.001 Are you using any restrict lines in your ntp.conf? If so, what are they? -- Steve Kostecke NTP Public Services Project - http://support.ntp.org/ ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Strange NTP problem on AMD Geode LX cards.
Rob wrote: > I am talking about problems at startup time. Even when you keep NTPD > running 24x7 you have to start it at some time. That is not a smooth > operation. But that problem is denied or ignored. I believe that Dr. Mills position is that the startup period is relatively short and it wasn't worth it (to him at least) to spend a lot of time tracking down what he viewed as transients. This has been reported many times in the newsgroup, and I know of some cases where it was reported via bugzilla. One case of low hanging fruit is that fact that NTP sets the drift frequency at startup and then if iburst is not in use, will correct the offset 5 minutes later. This offset correction is interpreted by the kernel reference code as a drift that has occurred since the frequency was set (i.e. 5 minutes) and then adjusts the frequency incrementally, sometimes putting the frequency at a drastically incorrect value, depending on the initial offset. What it should do is set the initial frequency and then set it again immediately after the first offset correction. Real frequency corrections should not occur until after the first offset correction. This is bug 1044 Brian Utterback ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Unable to get time from the internet using NTP
On Oct 5, 3:49 pm, Steve Kostecke wrote: > On 2009-10-05, Dew Wrobel wrote: > > > ntpq> pe > > remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter > > > > ntp1.truetime.c .INIT. 16 u - 64 0 0.000 0.000 0.001 > > zinc.ops.tns.it .INIT. 16 u - 64 0 0.000 0.000 0.001 > > ntp2.usno.navy. .INIT. 16 u - 64 0 0.000 0.000 0.001 > > Are you using any restrict lines in your ntp.conf? If so, what are they? > > -- > Steve Kostecke > NTP Public Services Project -http://support.ntp.org/ Not using any. Here is the /etc/ntp.conf being used: driftfile /drift/ntp.drift server 216.210.169.40 iburst server 128.118.46.3 iburst server 192.5.41.209 iburst I have the IP-addresses cause I wanted to rule out DNS resolution being a problem. ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Unable to get time from the internet using NTP
Dew Wrobel wrote: > On Oct 5, 3:49 pm, Steve Kostecke wrote: >> On 2009-10-05, Dew Wrobel wrote: >> >>> ntpq> pe >>> remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter >>> >>> ntp1.truetime.c .INIT. 16 u- 640 0.000 0.000 0.001 >>> zinc.ops.tns.it .INIT. 16 u- 640 0.000 0.000 0.001 >>> ntp2.usno.navy. .INIT. 16 u- 640 0.000 0.000 0.001 >> Are you using any restrict lines in your ntp.conf? If so, what are they? >> >> -- >> Steve Kostecke >> NTP Public Services Project -http://support.ntp.org/ > > Not using any. > > Here is the /etc/ntp.conf being used: > > driftfile /drift/ntp.drift > > server 216.210.169.40 iburst > server 128.118.46.3 iburst > server 192.5.41.209 iburst > > I have the IP-addresses cause I wanted to rule out DNS resolution > being a problem. What O/S? At least on BSD and Linux I've used, there is output to /var/log/messages if ntpd is having a problem. It's not a fatal problem otherwise ntpd would fail to start. I'm assuming you can make other external connections ok www, ftp etc? There are some tools with ntpd you can use, ntptrace etc. Does that work, can you traceroute to a remote server? David ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Unable to get time from the internet using NTP
Dew Wrobel wrote: > On Oct 5, 2:17 pm, "Richard B. Gilbert" > wrote: >> Dew Wrobel wrote: >>> I have to setup a couple of servers that will get their time from the >>> internet. >>> I have following the steps listed athttp://www.pool.ntp.org/ >>> The following is the contents of ntp.conf: >>> driftfile /drift/ntp.drift >>> server 0.us.pool.ntp.org >>> server 1.us.pool.ntp.org >>> server 2.us.pool.ntp.org >>> server 3.us.pool.ntp.org >>> When I start NTP, the start up hands with ntpdate trying to get the >>> time from the servers. I have verified that the server names do >>> verify in DNS. >>> Do I need to pick a different set of servers? Any idea/suggestions >>> would be greatly appreciatd. >>> Thanks >> Ntpdate is "deprecated". Perhaps you should eliminate ntpdate and start >> ntpd with the "-g" option. This option tells ntpd to find out what time >> it is by querying the servers and then setting that time. >> >> The results should be similar either way but ntpd -g is the documented >> and supported way to set the time at startup. >> >> If you add "iburst" to each server line in your ntp.conf you should get >> a faster startup. Iburst will cause ntpd to send an initial burst of >> eight requests at two second intervals. The replies fill the "filter >> pipeline" and should get you synchronized a little faster. >> >> Ntpd will need about ten hours to achieve the accuracy it's capable of. >> Initially you should have a reasonable approximation of the correct >> time; e.g. within, say, 100 milliseconds. The longer it runs the >> better the time will get. >> >> If you can possibly avoid rebooting and/or restarting NTPD you will get >> much better time. > > The call to ntpdate is part of the RC script that comes with the OS. > I checked an option under /etc/sysconfig/ntp to not call ntpdate on > start. Check the version of the NTPD you have. A lot of companies ship NTP Version 3.x while NTP is now at V4.2 (I think!). > > I found a web page about debugging NTP and came across running ntpq > with various parameters. here is the output from that. > I can't help and wondering, based on the as option, it sounds that the > time servers being used are reject. > > Aside from what servers I'm using, I don't have to do anything else, > do I? > > ntpq> pe > remote refid st t when poll reach delay > offset jitter > == > ntp1.truetime.c .INIT. 16 u- 6400.000 > 0.000 0.001 > zinc.ops.tns.it .INIT. 16 u- 6400.000 > 0.000 0.001 > ntp2.usno.navy. .INIT. 16 u- 6400.000 > 0.000 0.001 > ntpq> as The "reach" field says you are not getting replies from any of your chosen servers! The likeliest reasons for that is that are that: 1. Your requests are not reaching the servers 2. The replies to your requests are not reaching you. 3. You didn't wait long enough after starting NTPD before running NTPQ. Check with your network people. NTP uses port 123 which is a privileged port. Your firewall may be blocking it. You need to allow both incoming and outgoing traffic on port 123. In your NTP.CONF file you can add the keyword "IBURST" to each of your server statements. This will cause the first eight requests to be sent at intervals of two seconds. Subsequent packets will be sent a rates ranging from 64 seconds to 1024 seconds; the rates are determined by NTPD and will be adjusted as necessary from time to time! ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
