In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Oliver Fromme [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: [LoN]Kamikaze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: My original intention was just to say that openntpd works just out of the
box,
: while ntpd doesn't.
:
: That's just plain wrong. ntpd _does_ work out of the box
:
My original intention was just to say that openntpd works just out of the box,
while ntpd doesn't. And since openntpd works fine for me, I am not really
interested in resolving this. Anyway since so many of you seem to be, here is
the requested data:
ntp.conf
server 0.de.pool.ntp.org minpoll 4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
My original intention was just to say that openntpd works just out of the box,
while ntpd doesn't. And since openntpd works fine for me, I am not really
interested in resolving this. Anyway since so many of you seem to be,
[LoN]Kamikaze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My original intention was just to say that openntpd works just out of the
box,
while ntpd doesn't.
That's just plain wrong. ntpd _does_ work out of the box
(unless your configuration is broken), and it seems to be
more accurate than openntpd.
On Mon, 23 Jul 2007, Matthew Seaman wrote:
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
My original intention was just to say that openntpd works just out of
the box, while ntpd doesn't. And since openntpd works fine for me, I
am not really interested in resolving this. Anyway since so many of
you seem to be, here is
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 09:39:32AM -0500, Sean C. Farley wrote:
Do you actually need to open it up that way? I have this on my server
which seems to work:
You don't *need* to. The method he described allows you to avoid
having to make a restrict entry for each matching server, that's
all.
Oliver Fromme wrote:
[LoN]Kamikaze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My original intention was just to say that openntpd works just out of the
box,
while ntpd doesn't.
That's just plain wrong. ntpd _does_ work out of the box
(unless your configuration is broken), and it seems to be
more
On Jul 23, 2007, at 7:10 AM, Oliver Fromme wrote:
[LoN]Kamikaze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
server 0.de.pool.ntp.org minpoll 4 maxpoll 8
server 1.de.pool.ntp.org minpoll 4 maxpoll 8
server 2.de.pool.ntp.org minpoll 4 maxpoll 8
server ntp1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de minpoll 4 maxpoll 8
server
Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Jul 23, 2007, at 7:10 AM, Oliver Fromme wrote:
[LoN]Kamikaze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
server 0.de.pool.ntp.org minpoll 4 maxpoll 8
server 1.de.pool.ntp.org minpoll 4 maxpoll 8
server 2.de.pool.ntp.org minpoll 4 maxpoll 8
server ntp1.rz.uni-karlsruhe.de minpoll 4
On Jul 23, 2007, at 12:22 PM, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
I wish to second what Oliver has said, only more strongly: using
minpoll 4 is considered abusive and a misuse of the NTP pool. From
http://www.pool.ntp.org/use.html
That was only for testing.
Please use your own timeservers for testing, not
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 12:18:59PM -0700, Chuck Swiger wrote:
No machine should ever poll faster than once a minute (aka minpoll 8) to
someone else's timeserver without prior agreement. For an example of a
reasonable client config, MacOS X uses a minpoll of 12 and a maxpoll of 17.
And an
On Sat, 21 Jul 2007, Kevin Oberman wrote:
Hi,
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Doug Hardie wrote:
On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:08, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
As the subject says, on my 6-stable systems ntpd just sits there and does
nothing. The logs only mention when the daemon gets started or shut
down
Hi,
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Doug Hardie wrote:
On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:08, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
As the subject says, on my 6-stable systems ntpd just sits there and does
nothing. The logs only mention when the daemon gets started or shut
down. It
complains when servers
Hi,
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Doug Hardie wrote:
On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:08, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
As the subject says, on my 6-stable systems ntpd just sits there and does
nothing. The logs only mention when the daemon gets started or shut
down. It
complains when servers are not reachable
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Hi,
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Doug Hardie wrote:
On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:08, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
As the subject says, on my 6-stable systems ntpd just sits there and
does
nothing. The logs only mention when the daemon gets started or shut
down. It
complains
Can you send the output of ntp.conf?
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Hi,
[LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
Doug Hardie wrote:
On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:08, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
As the subject says, on my 6-stable systems ntpd just sits there and
does
nothing. The logs only mention
On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 10:37:14AM +0300, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
...
ntpd will not change time if the difference is too big - I think it
should be less then 1000s.
ntpdate will :)
...
Please try to be a little more careful: the above is incorrect.
From ntpd(8):
-g Normally, ntpd
On Jul 20, 2007, at 3:37 AM, Stefan Lambrev wrote:
Other problem that I see is if you are behind NAT/firewall.
Because ntpd make a request and wait for response on different
port, so check your firewall configuration and blocked packets.
we have zero problems with ntpd behind a NAT
As the subject says, on my 6-stable systems ntpd just sits there and does
nothing. The logs only mention when the daemon gets started or shut down. It
complains when servers are not reachable, but does nothing when they are
available.
The drift file always contains 0.00.
ntpdate and openntpd
On Thu, Jul 19, 2007 at 07:08:21PM +0200, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
As the subject says, on my 6-stable systems ntpd just sits there and does
nothing
It seems what ntpd has in complexity it lacks in robustness. I'd prefer to
have
openntpd in the base system. It seems to be very simple
On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:08, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
As the subject says, on my 6-stable systems ntpd just sits there
and does
nothing. The logs only mention when the daemon gets started or shut
down. It
complains when servers are not reachable, but does nothing when
they are available
Doug Hardie wrote:
On Jul 19, 2007, at 10:08, [LoN]Kamikaze wrote:
As the subject says, on my 6-stable systems ntpd just sits there and does
nothing. The logs only mention when the daemon gets started or shut
down. It
complains when servers are not reachable, but does nothing when
* Doug Hardie [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2007-07-19 10:32 -0700]:
Are you on a static IP address? If not, ntpd obtains its IP address when it
starts up and uses it forever. If your IP address changes then it will not
be able to communicate with the upstream ntp servers. It has to be
On 2007-Jul-19 19:08:21 +0200, [LoN]Kamikaze [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As the subject says, on my 6-stable systems ntpd just sits there and does
nothing. The logs only mention when the daemon gets started or shut down. It
complains when servers are not reachable, but does nothing when
24 matches
Mail list logo
