Cal Webster wrote:
> Our NTP servers are slowly loosing time. All are in nearly perfect sync
> but collectively drift backwards over time. Is there a way to apply a
> bias to the drift calculations?
ntp.drift on the one machine with the local clock configured.
>
> We had to disconnect from the In
Varrun Ashok schrieb:
> [...]
> after the kernel i created booted i get the following message:
> 1)
> NET: Registered protocol family 10
> lo:disabled privacy extensions
> libisc/ifiter_ioctl.c 567 REQUIRE (iter->pos<(unsigned int)
> iter->ifc.ifc_len)failed
> 2)then after logging as root i
David Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Cal Webster wrote:
>> Our NTP servers are slowly loosing time. All are in nearly perfect sync
>> but collectively drift backwards over time. Is there a way to apply a
>> bias to the drift calculations?
>ntp.drift on the one machine with the local clock c
On 2008-11-21, David Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Any pure clients should not have a local clock. That is universally
> true, not just for time islands. For the remaining machines, you should
> either specify a clear hieararchy, with steps of two in the local
> clock stratum between
Unruh wrote:
>
> ??? Why would they be that high? The clients are surely all getting their
> time from that one master, and their stratum should be one higher. Also who
> cares what stratum he declares his master to be. If he reallynever goes to
> the net, he could make it stratum 1 for all ntp c
