morsupil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On 3 d=E9c, 00:30, Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> >>Hi all,
>> >>Since yesterday I saw the leap second Flag set on some servers of
>> >>ntp.pool.org. I'am quite surprise because the l
morsupil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>On 3 d=E9c, 00:30, Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>> >>Hi all,
>> >>Since yesterday I saw the leap second Flag set on some servers of
>> >>ntp.pool.org. I'am quite surprise because the l
On 2008-12-02, Cal Webster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 21:29 +, Steve Kostecke wrote:
>> Orphan Mode was introduced in version 4.2.2
>
> It sure would be nice if there were more documentation about Orphan
> mode.
The Official Distribution Documentation is maintained b
On 2008-12-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> That still doesn't make sense to me. A peer is objecting to his peer
> using a fellow peer as a candidate? Why then does this behavior only
> present itself on the version 4.2.4 peer and none of the others?
The difference between 4.2.4
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cal Webster) writes:
Cal> It sure would be nice if there were more documentation about Orphan
Cal> mode. There is nothing in the man or info pages for any version. The
Cal> only scraps I could find were a short blurb on the "associations" page
David Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Cal Webster wrote:
>
> >
> > How could any of the "peers" be clients of themselves? Only the master
>
> I think that is the nature of peers. The relationship is symmetric.
That still doesn't make sense to me. A peer is objecting to his peer usin
On 3 déc, 00:30, Bill Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >>Hi all,
> >>Since yesterday I saw the leap second Flag set on some servers of
> >>ntp.pool.org. I'am quite surprise because the leap second add to be
> >>set the 31/12/2008 an
Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>Hi all,
>>Since yesterday I saw the leap second Flag set on some servers of
>>ntp.pool.org. I'am quite surprise because the leap second add to be
>>set the 31/12/2008 and not the 1/12/2008.
>>Is it normal
>The leap is announced a
Cal Webster wrote:
>
> How could any of the "peers" be clients of themselves? Only the master
I think that is the nature of peers. The relationship is symmetric.
> server is using the Undisciplined Local Clock as a reference. All the
> others appear to be correctly rejecting theirs and using th
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 21:29 +, Steve Kostecke wrote:
> On 2008-12-02, Cal Webster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > One of my NTP servers (Server D below) is rejecting both of its peers.
> > They, on the other hand, each have consistent candidate status for both
> > of *their* peers. This rejec
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 21:33 +, David Woolley wrote:
> Cal Webster wrote:
>
> > ppoll=10, flash=800 peer_loop, keyid=0, ttl=0, offset=6.071,
> ^^^
>
> Looks like it is objecting to to the client ultimately being its own
> server, which I guess is a reasonable thin
Steve Kostecke wrote:
> On 2008-12-02, David Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> naughty boy will not be a well-behaved Orphan Child.
>> Orphan and local clock are mutually incompatible!
>
> Nonsense.
>
> Orphan Mode and the Undisciplined Local Clock are merely ways of
> providing a time "s
Cal Webster wrote:
> ppoll=10, flash=800 peer_loop, keyid=0, ttl=0, offset=6.071,
^^^
Looks like it is objecting to to the client ultimately being its own
server, which I guess is a reasonable thing to do.
___
questions ma
On 2008-12-02, Cal Webster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> One of my NTP servers (Server D below) is rejecting both of its peers.
> They, on the other hand, each have consistent candidate status for both
> of *their* peers. This rejecting server does pick the master server as
> it's reference source
On 2008-12-02, David Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> naughty boy will not be a well-behaved Orphan Child.
>
> Orphan and local clock are mutually incompatible!
Nonsense.
Orphan Mode and the Undisciplined Local Clock are merely ways of
providing a time "source" to ntpd.
As with any set of
morsupil wrote:
> On 2 déc, 20:22, Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>> Hi all,
>>> Since yesterday I saw the leap second Flag set on some servers of
>>> ntp.pool.org. I'am quite surprise because the leap second add to be
>>> set the 31/12/2008 and not the 1/12/2008.
>>
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 19:50 +, David Woolley wrote:
> Cal Webster wrote:
> > One of my NTP servers (Server D below) is rejecting both of its peers.
> > They, on the other hand, each have consistent candidate status for both
> > of *their* peers. This rejecting server does pick the master serv
On 2 déc, 20:22, Unruh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> >Hi all,
> >Since yesterday I saw the leap second Flag set on some servers of
> >ntp.pool.org. I'am quite surprise because the leap second add to be
> >set the 31/12/2008 and not the 1/12/2008.
> >Is it normal
>
> T
Cal Webster wrote:
> One of my NTP servers (Server D below) is rejecting both of its peers.
> They, on the other hand, each have consistent candidate status for both
> of *their* peers. This rejecting server does pick the master server as
> it's reference source but has no candidates listed. I don'
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Hi all,
>Since yesterday I saw the leap second Flag set on some servers of
>ntp.pool.org. I'am quite surprise because the leap second add to be
>set the 31/12/2008 and not the 1/12/2008.
>Is it normal
The leap is announced at the beginning of the month to make sure
One of my NTP servers (Server D below) is rejecting both of its peers.
They, on the other hand, each have consistent candidate status for both
of *their* peers. This rejecting server does pick the master server as
it's reference source but has no candidates listed. I don't see anything
that would c
Hi all,
Since yesterday I saw the leap second Flag set on some servers of
ntp.pool.org. I'am quite surprise because the leap second add to be
set the 31/12/2008 and not the 1/12/2008.
Is it normal
Michael
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.n
Hi, Maarten
> Well, as per above, I'll be happy to punch a hole in the firewall for
> you.
It would be nice and we would like it.
It also bring us a new problem... To recognize such hosts
(normaly closed, but openned for the research) as one of
the research goals is to map the ntp network.
But we
"Antonio M. Moreiras" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Maarten Wiltink escreveu:
>> "Antonio M. Moreiras" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> Aiming to collect and analyze data from NTP network, a survey will
>>> be held at all hosts avai
24 matches
Mail list logo
