[ntp:questions] linux client configuration
If I want to set 2 time server (main and backup), What's typical configuration for ntpd client for linux ? If I had: restrict default ignore restrict 127.0.0.1 restrict Main nomodify nopeer notrap noquery restrict Backup nomodify nopeer notrap noquery server Main server Backup I see there are 2 processes, but It's possibile having unique process which request time to first time server available ? ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] linux client configuration
Riccardo wrote: If I want to set 2 time server (main and backup), What's typical configuration for ntpd client for linux ? If I had: restrict default ignore restrict 127.0.0.1 restrict Main nomodify nopeer notrap noquery restrict Backup nomodify nopeer notrap noquery server Main server Backup You are using IPs for Main and Backup, right? 'restrict' works on IPs, not names. I see there are 2 processes, but It's possibile having unique process which request time to first time server available ? You may be seeing the DNS resolver processes. H ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] GPX18x LVC 3.50 firmware - high serial delay problem workround
Jan Ceuleers wrote: On 16/01/11 09:11, Chris Albertson wrote: No, if it is not _processed right at the UTC second it is pointless. The Motorola GPS allows you to adjust the timing of the pulse to account for delay in the antenna feed line and serial line. I was also thinking about avoiding interrupt collisions. In an ideal world, if the PPS interrupt occurs exactly at the UTC second it is going to coincide with the system's timer interrupt, is it not? That's even if the system has only one PPS source. So if the GPS receiver is capable of shifting its PPS signal in time, why not shift it to a quiet part of the second in interrupt terms, and then fudge that away in ntpd? This is exactly why and how the Oncore works the way it does. :-) Terje -- - Terje.Mathisen at tmsw.no almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Use ntpd as a daemon so that it continuously disciplines clock, no
On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:06:43AM -0800, Chris Albertson wrote: As for resources ntpd takes up less then you can measure. After it has been running for a while it takes up almost zero. Most of the activity is when it first starts up. So letting it run might use less CPU cycle than starting it serval times per day. Running the crontab scrip involves starting multiple new processes. this is a very reasource intensive thing to do, much more so then letting ntpd run. Even when completely idle, ntpd wakes up every second and does quite a lot (updating timers, scanning the peer hash table, etc). I'd say that starting ntpd two times per day will take much less resources than running it continuosly. -- Miroslav Lichvar ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Polling interval in FreeBSD vs. Windows
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 05:37:18PM -0800, Chris Albertson wrote: A longer poling interval is not a bad thing. The polling interval is adjusted so as to reduce total noise. There is a sweet spot where polling faster or slower is worse. Yes, there is a sweet spot, but ntpd isn't looking for it. It strongly prefers longer polling interval to save network bandwidth. If you want the best accuracy, you will need to set maxpoll according to the network jitter and clock stability you have. For a typical clock oscillator and the standard kernel PLL, poll 3 will give you better accuracy than poll 4 when the network jitter is about 100 microseconds or less. Such jitter is not uncommon on LAN, sometimes I observe 100us jitter to close pool.ntp.org servers! As an example, lets say you wanted to measure the thickness of a sheet of paper but your ruller only goes to 1/100 inch divisions. You get soe gross errors if yu tried to measure one sheet. But stack 1,000 sheets and you will do well. Longer polling interval works kind of the same way. Except the thickness is slowly changing during the production, so you have to use a compromise to keep the noise down and to get the current thinkness. I think the longer poll time is telling you something good about the internal clock in the BSD system. What exactly? -- Miroslav Lichvar ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] help needed for ntpd multicast mode
On 11/30/2010 2:20 PM, Dave Hart wrote: On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 18:50 UTC, Atul Gupta atul14.ku...@gmail.com wrote: I used broadcastdelay in my client's config, but client is still trying to send unicast messages to server after receiving multicast messages from server. You mentioned using ntp 4.2.0. You can find your version's broadcastdelay documented at: http://doc.ntp.org/4.2.0/miscopt.html It reads to me like the behavior has changed in newer versions. For ntpd 4.2.0 (circa 2003), it appears the unicast delay calibration is always attempted, and the broadcastdelay value is only used if the attempt fails. If you upgrade to a recent version, using specifying broadcastdelay short-circuits the attempt. I know this is rather late but unless the code has changed recently broadcastdelay didn't used to be usable for multicast and novolley does not have any affect on multicast. It was meant for broadcast only. In fact novolley does not exist for a multicastclient configuration. Danny ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Use ntpd as a daemon so that it continuously disciplines clock, no
Even when completely idle, ntpd wakes up every second and does quite a lot (updating timers, scanning the peer hash table, etc). I'd say that starting ntpd two times per day will take much less resources than running it continuosly. -- Miroslav Lichvar Have you ever measured the resources used by ntpd on a modern CPU? Absolutely negligible - at least when serving a dozen clients and serving as a stratum-1 PPS clock. Perhaps a little more with thousands of clients, of course. Not running ntpd continuously will ruin its accuracy. Cheers, David ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Use ntpd as a daemon so that it continuously disciplines clock, no
On 1/17/2011 6:20 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:06:43AM -0800, Chris Albertson wrote: As for resources ntpd takes up less then you can measure. After it has been running for a while it takes up almost zero. Most of the activity is when it first starts up. So letting it run might use less CPU cycle than starting it serval times per day. Running the crontab scrip involves starting multiple new processes. this is a very reasource intensive thing to do, much more so then letting ntpd run. Even when completely idle, ntpd wakes up every second and does quite a lot (updating timers, scanning the peer hash table, etc). I'd say that starting ntpd two times per day will take much less resources than running it continuosly. So running NTPD continuously eats 0.05% of the CPU! Do you *really* care? ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Use ntpd as a daemon so that it continuously disciplines clock, no
David J Taylor david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid writes: Have you ever measured the resources used by ntpd on a modern CPU? Absolutely negligible - at least when serving a dozen clients and serving as a stratum-1 PPS clock. Perhaps a little more with thousands of clients, of course. Not running ntpd continuously will ruin its accuracy. Checking our server here with, probaly over 1000 clients, which also monitors a GPS refclock, ntpd seems to have used about 0.1% CPU over the last month on an oldish P4 box. David. ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Use ntpd as a daemon so that it continuously disciplines clock, no
In article vs2dnzbjt4qhxanqnz2dnuvz_jydn...@giganews.com, Richard B. Gilbert rgilber...@comcast.net wrote: On 1/17/2011 6:20 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: Even when completely idle, ntpd wakes up every second and does quite a lot (updating timers, scanning the peer hash table, etc). I'd say that starting ntpd two times per day will take much less resources than running it continuosly. So running NTPD continuously eats 0.05% of the CPU! Do you *really* care? 3:13PM up 26 days, 7:36, 1 user, load averages: 0.06, 0.09, 0.04 USER PID %CPU %MEMVSZ RSS TTYSTAT STARTED TIME COMMAND root 255 0.0 1.8 24620 18744 ? Ss 22Dec10 86:19.57 /usr/sbin/ntpd ntpd has been running 26 days (37890 minutes) and has used 86 minutes of CPU; i.e., 0.2% of a 2.3GHz Intel Core 2 CPU. This is on a pool.ntp.org server that receives up to 100 queries/second. CPU use on a less busy system would likely be a lot less. I think it's fair to say that unless your CPU is *really* slow (embedded system?), ntp's CPU use is not worth worrying about -- especially given the advantages (more accurate time, even when the ntp server is unreachable). - river. ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Use ntpd as a daemon so that it continuously disciplines clock, no
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:46:28PM -, David J Taylor wrote: Even when completely idle, ntpd wakes up every second and does quite a lot (updating timers, scanning the peer hash table, etc). I'd say that starting ntpd two times per day will take much less resources than running it continuosly. Have you ever measured the resources used by ntpd on a modern CPU? Absolutely negligible - at least when serving a dozen clients and serving as a stratum-1 PPS clock. Perhaps a little more with thousands of clients, of course. Not running ntpd continuously will ruin its accuracy. For notebook users running ntpd only as an NTP client the extra wakeup per second may make a measurable difference in battery life. I was just pointing out it will take more resources than ntpd -q run twice a day. Of course, the accuracy will be orders of magnitude worse than continuosly running ntpd (even with poll 15 or 16). -- Miroslav Lichvar ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Use ntpd as a daemon so that it continuously disciplines clock, no
For notebook users running ntpd only as an NTP client the extra wakeup per second may make a measurable difference in battery life. I was just pointing out it will take more resources than ntpd -q run twice a day. Of course, the accuracy will be orders of magnitude worse than continuosly running ntpd (even with poll 15 or 16). -- Miroslav Lichvar Yes, I appreciate what you were pointing out about resources, and normally I would agree with you. However, David Malone reports 0.1% CPU for serving a thousand users, so the CPU for a single user will be far less, and negligible for a notebook user. Likely the overhead of launching the new process would outweigh any CPU/battery saved. On the PC I'm using right now, ntpd working ourely as a client has used 0.484 seconds total CPU in almost 2.5 days uptime, and around 5MB of memory. Cheers, David ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Polling interval in FreeBSD vs. Windows
On 2011-01-17, Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote: On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 05:37:18PM -0800, Chris Albertson wrote: A longer poling interval is not a bad thing. The polling interval is adjusted so as to reduce total noise. There is a sweet spot where polling faster or slower is worse. This is a bit of a myth. It depends entirely on what you want to optimize. To optimize the offset error, more polling is better. If you want to optimize the drift rate, then there is a sweet spot but it depends on all sorts of stuff, including the daily temp fluctuations due to the computer's being used more during the say. It is not at all clear what ntp is set up to optimize but as stated below, reducing network use is part of it. It also chooses an Allan intercept which is not one measured for your system but some average value ( from 1995?). Yes, there is a sweet spot, but ntpd isn't looking for it. It strongly prefers longer polling interval to save network bandwidth. If you want the best accuracy, you will need to set maxpoll according to the network jitter and clock stability you have. For a typical clock oscillator and the standard kernel PLL, poll 3 ??? Poll 3? will give you better accuracy than poll 4 when the network jitter is about 100 microseconds or less. Such jitter is not uncommon on LAN, sometimes I observe 100us jitter to close pool.ntp.org servers! As an example, lets say you wanted to measure the thickness of a sheet of paper but your ruller only goes to 1/100 inch divisions. You get soe gross errors if yu tried to measure one sheet. But stack 1,000 sheets and you will do well. Longer polling interval works kind of the same way. Except the thickness is slowly changing during the production, so you have to use a compromise to keep the noise down and to get the current thinkness. I think the longer poll time is telling you something good about the internal clock in the BSD system. What exactly? ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Use ntpd as a daemon so that it continuously disciplines clock, no
On 2011-01-17, Miroslav Lichvar mlich...@redhat.com wrote: On Sat, Jan 15, 2011 at 11:06:43AM -0800, Chris Albertson wrote: As for resources ntpd takes up less then you can measure. After it has been running for a while it takes up almost zero. Most of the activity is when it first starts up. So letting it run might use less CPU cycle than starting it serval times per day. Running the crontab scrip involves starting multiple new processes. this is a very reasource intensive thing to do, much more so then letting ntpd run. Even when completely idle, ntpd wakes up every second and does quite a lot (updating timers, scanning the peer hash table, etc). I'd say that starting ntpd two times per day will take much less resources than running it continuosly. Exactly what resources are you refering to? If you wake it twice a day, it is almost certainly being loaded in from disk, rather than from memory. That is lots of disk reads (libraries, etc) and wear and tear on the disks . If you run it as a daemon, it sits in memory, which may be a concern if you are chronically short of memory. The statement about resource use is so vague as to be useless. And this discussion has already used more resources than ntpd uses in a century (sending out the messages, people reading, and heavens, even replying to the messages, storing them on 1 computers, etc) . ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] linux client configuration
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:47 AM, RICCARDO ric.castell...@alice.it wrote: I see there are 2 processes, but It's possibile having unique process which request time to first time server available ? One process, yes. But it will use all available NTP servers to determine time. NTP never stops after the first one. It will then sync with what it thinks is the best server. It yopui have your own servers then list them in the config files. If you are using internet servers then use the pool servers. You always want at least three servers listed so the ntp has enough to compar acuracy. It you give it only one ntp can't know if it is right. With two ntp can't decide which is the the best, with three ntp can. But if you are using two of your own servers you know to be god then two is enough. -- = Chris Albertson Redondo Beach, California ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Use ntpd as a daemon so that it continuously disciplines clock, no
On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 04:51:47PM -, David J Taylor wrote: However, David Malone reports 0.1% CPU for serving a thousand users, so the CPU for a single user will be far less, and negligible for a notebook user. Likely the overhead of launching the new process would outweigh any CPU/battery saved. On the PC I'm using right now, ntpd working ourely as a client has used 0.484 seconds total CPU in almost 2.5 days uptime, and around 5MB of memory. How much CPU it has used right after start? Is it more than fifth of the 0.484 (which would be spent in 0.5 days)? Here, ntpd -q takes 14 milliseconds of CPU, including system time. Note that CPU power consumption depends on which sleep state it's in and it usually takes a lot of time to switch to/from deeper states, so it's more energy efficient to load CPU once for 0.5 seconds than 5 times for 10 microseconds. -- Miroslav Lichvar ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] linux client configuration
On 2011-01-17, Harlan Stenn st...@ntp.org wrote: Riccardo wrote: If I want to set 2 time server (main and backup), What's typical configuration for ntpd client for linux ? If I had: restrict default ignore restrict 127.0.0.1 restrict Main nomodify nopeer notrap noquery restrict Backup nomodify nopeer notrap noquery server Main server Backup You are using IPs for Main and Backup, right? 'restrict' works on IPs, not names. restrict works with hostnames which resolve to _only_ one IP address. -- Steve Kostecke koste...@ntp.org NTP Public Services Project - http://support.ntp.org/ ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Use ntpd as a daemon so that it continuously disciplines clock, no
How much CPU it has used right after start? Is it more than fifth of the 0.484 (which would be spent in 0.5 days)? I don't know. On another, less powerful, single-core PC, it's used 3.5s total CPU since December 24. Here, ntpd -q takes 14 milliseconds of CPU, including system time. Note that CPU power consumption depends on which sleep state it's in and it usually takes a lot of time to switch to/from deeper states, so it's more energy efficient to load CPU once for 0.5 seconds than 5 times for 10 microseconds. -- Miroslav Lichvar Miroslav, as Bill (unruh) says, launching a process involves a lot more than CPU - e.g. disk access. Far more energy to launch (as it will likely be out of any disk cache) than the microsecond of CPU a steady running ntpd may use every second. Cheers, David ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Use ntpd as a daemon so that it continuously disciplines clock, no
[ ...resource usage of ntpd... ] A machine running ntpd as a client or lightly loaded server is unlikely to consume more than a minute of CPU per day. The slowest machine I still have handy is a P3 @ 933MHz and ntpd uses about 15 CPU seconds per day with a dozen or so peers. When it was active in the pool, serving perhaps 20 requests/sec, it ran ~100 seconds of CPU per day normally. When Turk Telekom clients rotated in and starting hitting 1500 requests/sec, it went up to maybe ~300 seconds of CPU per day. If you've got a laptop running on battery, it's quite conceivable that you might not want to serve lots of clients, or any, but the power required to keep the wireless connection going will use a lot more juice than running ntpd does. By about an order of magnitude. [1] Regards, -- -Chuck [1]: This isn't a guess; I've done some measurements of a laptop with a meter. I see about 0.5W - 1W to keep wireless active, versus 0.035W for a busy ntpd @ 0.1% of ~35W draw for the CPU at full tilt. The hard drive and DVD drive each want about 5W when busy reading, and the LCD display is 20 - 30W, depending on brightness. Spinning up the hard drive twice a day for 16 seconds-- that's typically the shortest time laptop / green drives stay going if you do something quick with the disk and then let it park the heads-- uses about the same power as ntpd continuously running as a client would. (I wouldn't recommend serving time from a laptop for other reasons, namely they tend to vary in temperature more than rackmount or desktop machines, and because they tend to move around on the network and be put to sleep by users.) ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] ntp multicast mode
On 12/2/2010 8:16 AM, Richard B. Gilbert wrote: On 12/1/2010 10:49 PM, Atul Gupta wrote: Hi all, My ntp client is taking some time before syncing up with the server in multicast mode, generally its waiting for 4 packets from server before syncing its time, is it normal , and if so , what is the reason for this. NTPD is measuring the rate at which your clock ticks. It does not *just* set the clock, it also attempts to make the clock tick at a rate of exactly one tick per second! You can speed things up a *little* by using the iburst keyword in NTP.CONF. NTPD can take as long as ten hours to achieve the accuracy of which it is capable. I'd be interested in how you imagine it could do that since it is a multicast client and only receives packets rather than sending them! In read-only mode you have to wait until you have received enough packets to fill enough of the pipeline so that an analysis of the data can be done and an estimate of the clock calculated. A multicast server sends at the rate of 1 NTP packet per minute so it takes 4 minutes to get to that point. Danny ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] linux client configuration
On 1/17/2011 1:18 PM, Chris Albertson wrote: On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 12:47 AM, RICCARDOric.castell...@alice.it wrote: I see there are 2 processes, but It's possibile having unique process which request time to first time server available ? One process, yes. But it will use all available NTP servers to determine time. NTP never stops after the first one. It will then sync with what it thinks is the best server. It yopui have your own servers then list them in the config files. If you are using internet servers then use the pool servers. You always want at least three servers listed so the ntp has enough to compar acuracy. It you give it only one ntp can't know if it is right. With two ntp can't decide which is the the best, with three ntp can. But if you are using two of your own servers you know to be god then two is enough. Four servers is considered the minimum for a robust configuration. You can have one of the four servers fail and still have a working configuration. A failed server can mean either not responding or responding with an incorrect time. ISTR that, during the last NTP Survey, one server was responding with the WRONG YEAR!! This is the sort of thing that should not happen but does! You don't want it to happen to you if you can possibly avoid it. ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Polling interval in FreeBSD vs. Windows
Miroslav Lichvar wrote: On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 05:37:18PM -0800, Chris Albertson wrote: Yes, there is a sweet spot, but ntpd isn't looking for it. It strongly prefers longer polling interval to save network bandwidth. If you want I believe it is intended to select the sweet spot, although it is possible that it has been left behind by technology changes. the best accuracy, you will need to set maxpoll according to the network jitter and clock stability you have. For a typical clock oscillator and the standard kernel PLL, poll 3 will give you better accuracy than poll 4 when the network jitter is about 100 microseconds or less. Such jitter is not uncommon on LAN, sometimes I observe 100us jitter to close pool.ntp.org servers! I suspect you are using offset as your figure of merit. You cannot do that in an unqualified way. ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] linux client configuration
Chris Albertson wrote: One process, yes. But it will use all available NTP servers to determine time. NTP never stops after the first one. It will then sync with what it thinks is the best server. It yopui Here we go again. It will synchronise to a combination of all of the truechimers, up to a limit. It will however report stratum, peer and root distance based on only on of them. ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Polling interval in FreeBSD vs. Windows
On 2011-01-17, David Woolley david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid wrote: Miroslav Lichvar wrote: On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 05:37:18PM -0800, Chris Albertson wrote: Yes, there is a sweet spot, but ntpd isn't looking for it. It strongly prefers longer polling interval to save network bandwidth. If you want I believe it is intended to select the sweet spot, although it is possible that it has been left behind by technology changes. the best accuracy, you will need to set maxpoll according to the network jitter and clock stability you have. For a typical clock oscillator and the standard kernel PLL, poll 3 will give you better accuracy than poll 4 when the network jitter is about 100 microseconds or less. Such jitter is not uncommon on LAN, sometimes I observe 100us jitter to close pool.ntp.org servers! I suspect you are using offset as your figure of merit. You cannot do that in an unqualified way. ?? Surely what you want is that your computer's clock shows the correct time. If your computer disciplines the clock to have the true rate (1 sec of computer time equals one second of UTC time) but was 10 hours off, I think most people would count that as a failure of ntp. Not sure what you mean with You cannot do that in an unqualified way. ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] linux client configuration
Steve Kostecke wrote: restrict works with hostnames which resolve to _only_ one IP address. Use restrict source, to get around that issue? -- E-Mail Sent to this address blackl...@anitech-systems.com will be added to the BlackLists. ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] Polling interval in FreeBSD vs. Windows
On Sun, Jan 16, 2011 at 22:34 UTC, Edward T. Mischanko etm1...@hotmail.com wrote: Why in ...4.2.7p116 is it that I can set minpoll to 3 and poll every 8 seconds in Windows, but when I try the same thing for my referrence clock in FreeBSD, it will poll no sooner than 16 seconds. On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 00:47 UTC, Edward T. Mischanko etm1...@hotmail.com wrote: I am running the same version of ntpd on both boxes. I can not reproduce your results: hart@psp-fb2 fgrep 'minpoll 3' /etc/ntp.conf server 127.127.8.0 minpoll 3 mode 7 noselect hart@psp-fb2 ntpq -crv -p associd=0 status=0018 leap_none, sync_unspec, 1 event, no_sys_peer, version=ntpd 4.2.7p118@1.2449-o Tue Jan 18 01:07:14 UTC 2011 (1), processor=i386, system=FreeBSD/6.4-STABLE, leap=00, stratum=3, precision=-19, rootdelay=1.019, rootdisp=950.713, refid=149.20.68.27, reftime=d0df67eb.04b05ebb Tue, Jan 18 2011 1:14:19.018, clock=d0df6822.45ee9a50 Tue, Jan 18 2011 1:15:14.273, peer=0, tc=6, mintc=3, offset=0.726, frequency=80.705, sys_jitter=0.576, clk_jitter=0.257 remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter === GENERIC(0) .GPS.0 l58 3770.000 -22.304 4.303 [...] Perhaps someone else can give it a try, or you could verify your results with minpoll 3 on FreeBSD. Cheers, Dave Hart ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] linux client configuration
On 2011-01-18, E-Mail Sent ... wrote: Steve Kostecke wrote: restrict works with hostnames which resolve to _only_ one IP address. Use restrict source, to get around that issue? In the case under discussion this is not relevant. Plus, restrict source requires a suitably recent version of NTP. -- Steve Kostecke koste...@ntp.org NTP Public Services Project - http://support.ntp.org/ ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
