Re: [ntp:questions] GPX18x LVC 3.50 firmware - high serial delay problem workround

[David J Taylor]

"Q" <..@..> wrote in message 
news:4d79277a$0$2538$da0fe...@news.zen.co.uk...


"David J Taylor"  wrote in 
message news:il7bhl$vgg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...


I hope that Garmin at least acknowledge your request - let's hope the 
delay means that it being passed on.


Nothing yet - not even a robot responder telling my the form had been 
logged...


I'm tempted to try and call them tomorrow, but I don't know how that 
might go.


To me it should be common courtesy to reply as soon as possible, even if 
it's just an acknowledgement.  You might learn more from a phone call


Cheers,
David 


___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions

[ntp:questions] Is a Spectracom Netclock/2 worth saving?

[Rick Jones]

So, in a local "on its way to its final reward" pile I have come
across a Spectracom Netclock/2 and am wondering whether it might be
worth saving from the scrap heap.  It does power-up and shows a time.
Unsurprisingly I suppose since it has no antenna connected and I'm in
an office building, the Antenna, Signal and Time Sync LEDs light red
:)

rick jones
-- 
portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler
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
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions

Re: [ntp:questions] Flash 400 on all peers; can't get ntpd to be happy

[Uwe Klein]

Rick Jones wrote:

Uwe Klein  wrote:


What actually happened to the idea of different users ;-)



Silly Uwe - timesharing is for old, slightly bulging guys with
beards. :)

Have we met before in person ;-? ( How did you know )


It requires too much thought to make sure that User A can't
ever see anything of User B's and that Instance 1 of COTSware won't
step on the toes of Instance 2...  It is so much easier to just slap
an entire virtual "machine" onto the iron and be done with it...


And the naive expect this to be true and not just hiding another
set of much more convoluted problems that the simple task of
controlling access via 3 degrees of freedom would present.

IMHO most "leveragers" of VMs don't understand what happens in
their loved sandbox which completely destroys the
notion of a "controlled and escape proof environment"

G!
uwe

___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions

Re: [ntp:questions] Flash 400 on all peers; can't get ntpd to be happy

[Rick Jones]

Uwe Klein  wrote:
> What actually happened to the idea of different users ;-)

Silly Uwe - timesharing is for old, slightly bulging guys with
beards. :) It requires too much thought to make sure that User A can't
ever see anything of User B's and that Instance 1 of COTSware won't
step on the toes of Instance 2...  It is so much easier to just slap
an entire virtual "machine" onto the iron and be done with it...

rick jones
-- 
I don't interest myself in "why". I think more often in terms of
"when", sometimes "where"; always "how much."  - Joubert
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
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions

Re: [ntp:questions] Flash 400 on all peers; can't get ntpd to be happy

[Parvin, Richard]

I run Symmetricom S300.  I would like to use Sysplex to manage the time on my 
mainframes.  Could someone point me to some documentation?  Thank you. Richard

-Original Message-
From: questions-bounces+richard.parvin=eds@lists.ntp.org 
[mailto:questions-bounces+richard.parvin=eds@lists.ntp.org] On Behalf Of 
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2011 2:51 PM
To: questions@lists.ntp.org
Subject: Re: [ntp:questions] Flash 400 on all peers; can't get ntpd to be happy

Ralph wrote:
> The VM technology being used in the this case is
>  Microsoft's Virtual Server (which is the server version
>  of Virtual PC) and the predecessor to Hyper-V.

So, you are trying to run
 ntp-4.2.2pl-9
  on CentOS (v ?)
   in a Microsoft's Virtual Server (2005 ?)
on windows 2008?

Microsoft & CentOS would clearly be the places to ask about
 your unique needs.



A little research shows REHL (where CENTOS is ripped off from)
 has several recommendations depending on the version of REHL
 of kernel parameters that need to be set to get NTP to
 run properly on REHL in a VM.

disable_lost_ticks, clock=pmtmr, divider=10, clocksource=acpi_pm, ...

 They also recommend
  tinker panic 0 # Must be at the top of the ntp.conf file
  server 192.168.0.1 # Whatever the IP of the host OS is as seen by virtual OS
  # Make sure the firewall permits NTP between the virtual OS and the host OS
  # disable CPU power management



M$ seems to have notes on the subject, among them:






M$ seems say they have solved it in Hyper-V:
Linux Integration Services
 Timesync: The clock inside the virtual machine will
  remain synchronized with the clock on the host.



I think you have your solution.

-- 
E-Mail Sent to this address 
  will be added to the BlackLists.

___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions

Re: [ntp:questions] Flash 400 on all peers; can't get ntpd to be happy

[E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists]

Ralph wrote:
> The VM technology being used in the this case is
>  Microsoft's Virtual Server (which is the server version
>  of Virtual PC) and the predecessor to Hyper-V.

So, you are trying to run
 ntp-4.2.2pl-9
  on CentOS (v ?)
   in a Microsoft's Virtual Server (2005 ?)
on windows 2008?

Microsoft & CentOS would clearly be the places to ask about
 your unique needs.



A little research shows REHL (where CENTOS is ripped off from)
 has several recommendations depending on the version of REHL
 of kernel parameters that need to be set to get NTP to
 run properly on REHL in a VM.

disable_lost_ticks, clock=pmtmr, divider=10, clocksource=acpi_pm, ...

 They also recommend
  tinker panic 0 # Must be at the top of the ntp.conf file
  server 192.168.0.1 # Whatever the IP of the host OS is as seen by virtual OS
  # Make sure the firewall permits NTP between the virtual OS and the host OS
  # disable CPU power management



M$ seems to have notes on the subject, among them:






M$ seems say they have solved it in Hyper-V:
Linux Integration Services
 Timesync: The clock inside the virtual machine will
  remain synchronized with the clock on the host.



I think you have your solution.

-- 
E-Mail Sent to this address 
  will be added to the BlackLists.

___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions

[ntp:questions] Autokey sequence error

[martin.ger...@directbox.com]

I'm trying to set up an authenticated ntp server using the IFF identification 
scheme.
IP server: 192.168.0.36
IP client: 192.168.0.100 (same subnet)

On the server, I generetad the necessary key files:
cd /etc/ntp
ntp-keygen -T -I -p 
ntp-keygen -e -q  -p none > iff_pubkey_$HOSTNAME.
chown ntp /etc/ntp -R

On the client, I generated the client key, and copied the 
iff_pubkey_$HOSTNAME. file (I verified the md5 sums, so the copy is 
correct):
ntp-keygen -H -p none
mcedit iff_pubkey_.
ln -s iff_pubkey_. ntpkey_iff_server
chown ntp /etc/ntp -R

Relevant server config (/etc/ntp.conf):
restrict -4 default ignore
restrict -6 default ignore
restrict -4 192.168.0.0 mask 255.255.255.0 kod notrap nomodify limited notrust 
#ip range of clients
server 127.127.1.0
fudge 127.127.1.0 stratum 2 #give ourselves stratum 3...
restrict -4 127.0.0.1 kod nomodify #answer so we can query ourselves (ntpq)

Relevant client config:
restrict -4 default ignore
restrict -6 default ignore
server 192.168.0.36 autokey
restrict -4 192.168.0.36 kod notrap nomodify limited notrust
restrict -4 127.0.0.1 mask 255.0.0.0 kod nomodify #answer so we can query 
ourselves (ntpq)

After restarting server and client, and waiting a few minutes, I get the 
following
result (all commands executed on the client):
/var/log/syslog:
Mar 10 15:06:09 adminTestVM ntpd[28801]: ntpd 4.2.4p4@1.1520-o Sun Nov 22 
16:14:34 UTC 2009 (1)
Mar 10 15:06:09 adminTestVM ntpd[28802]: precision = 1.000 usec
Mar 10 15:06:09 adminTestVM ntpd[28802]: Listening on interface #0 wildcard, 
0.0.0.0#123 Disabled
Mar 10 15:06:09 adminTestVM ntpd[28802]: Listening on interface #1 lo, 
127.0.0.1#123 Enabled
Mar 10 15:06:09 adminTestVM ntpd[28802]: Listening on interface #2 eth0, 
192.168.0.100#123 Enabled
Mar 10 15:06:09 adminTestVM ntpd[28802]: kernel time sync status 0040
Mar 10 15:06:09 adminTestVM ntpd[28802]: frequency initialized 27.260 PPM from 
/var/cache/ntp/ntp.drift
Mar 10 15:10:29 adminTestVM ntpd[28802]: crypto_ident: no compatible identity 
scheme found [this line repeats once every 3 Minutes]

ntpdc -p
 remote   local  st poll reach  delay   offsetdisp
===
=192.168.0.36   192.168.0.1003   640 0.0  0.00 3.99217

ntpq -c as
ind assID status  conf reach auth condition  last_event cnt
===
  1 33888  e000   yes   yes   ok reject

ntpq -c"rv 33888 flags"
assID=33888 status=e000 unreach, conf, auth, no events,
flags=0x80121 [->crypto enable,IFF identity scheme,public key verified]

ntpdc -c 'showpeer sdbiTestLenny.dser.local'
remote 192.168.0.36, local 192.168.0.100
hmode client, pmode unspec, stratum 3, precision -20
leap 00, refid [127.127.1.0], rootdistance 0.0, rootdispersion 0.01154
ppoll 6, hpoll 6, keyid 2725112007, version 4, association 33888
reach 000, unreach 10, flash 0x0080, boffset 0.00400, ttl/mode 0
timer 0s, flags config, auth, bclient
reference time:  d1235b4e.cb15dfda  Thu, Mar 10 2011 15:14:38.793
originate timestamp: d1235b77.1708a94a  Thu, Mar 10 2011 15:15:19.089
receive timestamp:   d1235b78.c1456ca3  Thu, Mar 10 2011 15:15:20.754
transmit timestamp:  d1235b78.c11f8e20  Thu, Mar 10 2011 15:15:20.754
filter delay:  0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
   0.0  0.0  0.0  0.0
filter offset: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
   0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
filter order:  0123
   4567
offset 0.00, delay 0.0, error bound 3.99217, filter error 0.0

Translation of flash variable content 0x0080: "Autokey sequence error"

At that point my search ends: I can't find even a hint of what "Autokey 
sequence error" might mean anywhere.
In the debugging checklist 
(http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/debug.html) I got till point 6:
"If both the sent and received counters do increment" (they do) ", but the 
reach values in the pe billboard with ntpq continues to show zero" (it does)
"received packets are probably being discarded for some reason." (obviously 
they are discarded because they can not be authenticated)
"If this is the case, the cause should be evident from the flash variable as 
discussed above and on the ntpq page."
-> Well no, it actually isn't evident, as I still can't tell why client and 
server do not understand each other.

Versions: System is debian Lenny, ntp is version '1:4.2.4p4+dfsg-8lenny3'

I've followed the rabbit hole as far as I can. Can someone point me in the 
right direction from here?


___
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

[Q]

"David J Taylor"  wrote in message 
news:il7bhl$vgg$1...@news.eternal-september.org...

> I hope that Garmin at least acknowledge your request - let's hope the 
> delay means that it being passed on.

Nothing yet - not even a robot responder telling my the form had been 
logged...

I'm tempted to try and call them tomorrow, but I don't know how that might 
go. 


___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions

Re: [ntp:questions] Flash 400 on all peers; can't get ntpd to be happy

[Uwe Klein]

Dave Hart wrote:

On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 20:24 UTC, Chuck Swiger  wrote:

 I'm sure programs can detect virtualization, but the point is
VoIP softswitches do care about latency and probably about system
clock jitter, another example alongside the lvm approach demonstrating
VM timekeeping can be respectable, it's all about the particular
virtualization software and its integration with guest OSes.


My impression was that VM is very good at aggregating
systems with low utilisation.
The reason for Linux Clockless mod : avoid uneccesary churn.

With a hammer in your hand every problem is a nail.

So the unix solution to problems is quite often
slapping on another layer of indirection.

VMs are that. But is not a universal solution.


What actually happened to the idea of different users ;-)

uwe

___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions

Re: [ntp:questions] Flash 400 on all peers; can't get ntpd to be happy

[Ralph]

Chuck,

Thanks for all the insights and information here... I'm sure it got lost in the 
myriad of message here.

The VM technology being used in the this case is Microsoft's Virtual Server 
(which is the server version of Virtual PC) and the predecessor to Hyper-V.

___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions