Nigel Henry wrote:
> Based on this i'm fairly well stuffed, apart from restarting the daemon when
> I
> an reconnected to the Internet with a new dynamic IP address.
>
> So what I'm looking for is a script that will run when an Internet connection
> is re-established, and will then do a /etc/in
On 2007-04-15, Nigel Henry <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sunday 15 April 2007 18:58, David Woolley wrote:
>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nigel Henry) wrote:
>>
>> > ntpd is still running, but has timed out on trying to contact the
>> > Internet timeservers. If I st
I am, of course, horribly confused.
> The section of http://ntp.isc.org/Support/AccessRestrictions you
> referred to seems to specifically address *monitoring* ntpd, and in that
> case nomodify is appropriate. The next section seems to describe the
> individual choices.
As Steve correctly points
On 2007-04-15, Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ricardo Castellani said:
>
>> IPv4: restrict x.y.z.w [nomodify notrap nopeer noquery]
>> I don't understand because there also is "nomodify" option inside brackets.
>> If added "nomodify" option(as I told you in previous message) I think it
Riccardo,
The section of http://ntp.isc.org/Support/AccessRestrictions you
referred to seems to specifically address *monitoring* ntpd, and in that
case nomodify is appropriate. The next section seems to describe the
individual choices.
H
___
questions
Martin Burnicki wrote:
> Uwe Klein wrote:
>
>> Maarten Wiltink wrote:
>>
>>> I still have a working (when I left it) 386SX-16 with 5 MB RAM. Is
>>> there an NTP port for Windows for Workgroups 3.11?
>> I could offer testing for original win 3.1 on amd386dx5-133 ~20MB Ram ;-)
>
> The main problem
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
> I still have a working (when I left it) 386SX-16 with 5 MB RAM. Is
> there an NTP port for Windows for Workgroups 3.11?
>
I very much doubt it. Even Windows 95 can't run the later version of NTP
because it uses I/O Completion Ports. You might find an old NTP client
but no
David Woolley wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Danny Mayer) wrote:
> David Woolley wrote:
>
>>> ntpd also has a trap reporting mechanism, but I don't know of any
>
>> I don't know anything about this. Care to expand on this?
>
> ntp-4.2.0/html/ntpdc.html
>traps
>
Hi Riccardo,
> I read document at URL http://ntp.isc.org/Support/AccessRestrictions and I'm
> confused in " 6.5.1.2.1. If you used =restrict default ignore= " section.
> If I used "restrict default ignore", document says to add "restrict
> 127.0.0.1" to allow unrestricted access from the localhost
Even if you use "restrict default nomodify nopeer notrap noquery" you
must specify SERVER x.y.z.k so one IP address needs to be specified. If
server has more than one IP address, according to my opinion, you
should have having no "RESTRICT x.y.z.k" istruction in ntp.conf and
that'ìs possible on
Dear Harlan,
I read document at URL http://ntp.isc.org/Support/AccessRestrictions and I'm
confused in " 6.5.1.2.1. If you used =restrict default ignore= " section.
If I used "restrict default ignore", document says to add "restrict
127.0.0.1" to allow unrestricted access from the localhost. OK;
the
On Sun, 15 Apr 2007, Nigel Henry wrote:
> Ntp is working just fine since I enabled it on my Linux machines some time
> back, but as I'm on dialup, I lose the connection from time to time, and when
> I'm not DL'ing updates overnight, I usually shutdown the 2 machines on the
> LAN.
>
> The 2 machine
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Riccardo Castellani) wrote:
> Richard, but "restrict default ignore" is more resctricted that "restrict
> default nomodify nopeer notrap noquery".
> Why should you suggest me second option ?
Maybe because it works even if the server has more than
On Sunday 15 April 2007 18:58, David Woolley wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nigel Henry) wrote:
> > ntpd is still running, but has timed out on trying to contact the
> > Internet timeservers. If I stop, then restart ntpd, the timeservers are
> > contacted ok,
>
> I
Richard, but "restrict default ignore" is more resctricted that "restrict
default nomodify nopeer notrap noquery".
Why should you suggest me second option ?
I'should always be more comfortable with ignore for all hosts except for
servers A/B even if I have no nat or Stateful inspection firewall.
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nigel Henry) wrote:
> ntpd is still running, but has timed out on trying to contact the Internet
> timeservers. If I stop, then restart ntpd, the timeservers are contacted ok,
I'm not sure what you mean by timed out. If a server becomes unrea
Ntp is working just fine since I enabled it on my Linux machines some time
back, but as I'm on dialup, I lose the connection from time to time, and when
I'm not DL'ing updates overnight, I usually shutdown the 2 machines on the
LAN.
The 2 machines are connected to the Internet through a Smooth
Uwe Klein wrote:
> John Allen wrote:
>> On a Windows XP system, the front-side bus spread spectrum option had
>> no evident effect, unlike the choice of HAL (hardware abstraction
>> layer) which was critical (on an nForce2 motherboard).
>
> is that the issue connected with apic routing of timer
John Allen wrote:
> On a Windows XP system, the front-side bus spread spectrum option had no
> evident effect, unlike the choice of HAL (hardware abstraction layer)
> which was critical (on an nForce2 motherboard).
is that the issue connected with apic routing of timer interrupts?
Symtom is you
Hal Murray wrote:
> I don't agree with the suggestion to disable the spread spectrum
> stuff. It's there for a reason. Effectively, your CPU will run
> slightly slower. I haven't seen anything published to indicate
> that the speed is sufficiently less stable so that ntpd will notice.
> It will
David Woolley wrote:
> Hal Murray wrote:
>
>> Then your goal is not to synchronize B's clock to A's clock, you need
>> to synchronize B's clock to the source of your CBR data.
>
> No. He wants to synchronize B's clock to that of the machine that
> is adding time stamps to the data stream.
Exac
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hal Murray) wrote:
> I don't agree with the suggestion to disable the spread spectrum
> stuff. It's there for a reason. Effectively, your CPU will run
The reason is basically a workaround for poor quality combinations of
case and motherboard.
Hal Murray wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Spoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Hello,
>>
>>I've found the following articles rather interesting:
>>
>>http://www.wraith.sf.ca.us/ntp/#bios-issues
>>http://www.ijs.si/time/temp-compensation/
>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage-control
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Danny Mayer) wrote:
David Woolley wrote:
> > ntpd also has a trap reporting mechanism, but I don't know of any
> I don't know anything about this. Care to expand on this?
ntp-4.2.0/html/ntpdc.html
traps
Display the traps set in the
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Spoon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Hello,
>
>I've found the following articles rather interesting:
>
>http://www.wraith.sf.ca.us/ntp/#bios-issues
>http://www.ijs.si/time/temp-compensation/
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltage-controlled_oscillator
>
>Regards.
I do
25 matches
Mail list logo
