>>> In article <8ylql.1528$lc7.1...@text.news.virginmedia.com>, "David J
>>> Taylor" writes:
Harlan> Become a member of the NTP Forum.
David> I applied and heard nothing.
I'll look to see what happened there.
Harlan> Get companies you work with/for to become members.
David> I applied and hear
Steve Kostecke wrote:
[]
> The canonnical address for contacting the individuals responsible for
> the operation of any web-site is webmas...@thedomain. One does not
> need to see a web-page to learn this.
Steve, I'm delighted to hear that ntp.org still conform to this
convention, but very many W
>>> In article , Rob
>>> writes:
Rob> David Mills wrote:
>> Rob,
>>
>> The only address supported here are on 128.4.
>>
>> Dave
Rob> The 128.4 address is working again. However, when you think it is the
Rob> only address supported, you need to update the DNS. A DNS query for
Rob> www.ntp.o
David Woolley wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
>>
>> A very poor configuration if accuracy is wanted. Typically, one
>> "edge", leading or trailing, of the PPS output is within 50 to 100
>> nanoseconds of the "top of the second"! The serial output tells you
>> the time value of the PPS "e
Unruh wrote:
> Jason writes:
>
>> Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>> David J Taylor wrote:
Jason wrote:
[]
> G. What have I missed, or gotten confused?
[]
> Thanks,
>
> Jason.
You forgot to say what the going rate is for the consultancy you want!
>>> Indeed.
Terje Mathisen wrote:
> Jason wrote:
>> The critical time-stamp of the transactions must be tighter than 100us.
>
> Sorry, no can do, except probabilistically: You can get X% of time
> samples within 100us, as measured by the loopstats file on each client
> machine, but you cannot guarantee it u
David Woolley wrote:
> Terje Mathisen wrote:
>
>>
>> OTOH 100-1000 us is in fact quite doable using standard NTP.
>
> As I read it, the 10s of microseconds constraint applied to the whole
> network. The 100s of microseconds allowance was between the system and
> UTC.
The 10s of us applies to a
On 2009-03-03, David J Taylor wrote:
> A practice I abhor, to be honest. If I read something in a newsgroup, I
> expect a response in a newsgroup, not some personal e-mail, although the
> newsreader I use does allow simultaneous posting to a newsgroup and a
> direct e-mail.
Once again, you'
Steve Kostecke wrote:
> On 2009-03-03, David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> I did not "complain", I asked whether what I was seeing was correct,
>> and some others confirmed this.
>
> Quibling over which word I used misses the point.
To me there is a distinct difference between reporting something and
as
>Actually, 50E6 seconds is 578 days. It's not out of the question to
>have a third clock always sync-ed to GPS, fed off a 48V battery, and
>drive it to the data centers twice a year to slave the local oscillators.
Thanks for catching my fat-finger. Yes, that's what I was fishing for.
--
The
Augustine wrote:
> One concern I have is about stepping the time backwards. NTP may do
> this and you must be aware of its impact on your time stamping
> requirements.
>
> HTH
NTP does this ONLY when the time is off by 128 milliseconds or more. If
NTP is that far off, other than at startup, so
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>
> A very poor configuration if accuracy is wanted. Typically, one "edge",
> leading or trailing, of the PPS output is within 50 to 100 nanoseconds
> of the "top of the second"! The serial output tells you the time value
> of the PPS "edge".
As I read it, the PPS
Terje Mathisen wrote:
>
> OTOH 100-1000 us is in fact quite doable using standard NTP.
As I read it, the 10s of microseconds constraint applied to the whole
network. The 100s of microseconds allowance was between the system and UTC.
___
questions ma
Jason writes:
>Terje Mathisen wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> Jason wrote:
>>> []
G. What have I missed, or gotten confused?
>>> []
Thanks,
Jason.
>>>
>>> You forgot to say what the going rate is for the consultancy you want!
>>>
>>>
>>
> > Indeed. My standard rate is $2
On 2009-03-03, David J Taylor wrote:
> Steve Kostecke wrote: []
>
>> I reported the problem using the correct channels and it was
>> resolved.
>>
>> You're very lucky that I read the news-group before starting to work
>> this morning; I don't always do so. If I had not I would not have
>> seen yo
On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 7:13 AM, Jason wrote:
> The critical time-stamp of the transactions must be tighter than 100us.
As others have stated, this is likely not possible using Ethernet,
especially on blade servers, which often share IO channels. You will
likely see switch queuing latencies higher
David Mills wrote:
> Rob,
>
> The only address supported here are on 128.4.
>
> Dave
The 128.4 address is working again.
However, when you think it is the only address supported, you need to
update the DNS.
A DNS query for www.ntp.org returns the 204.152.184.138 address as well.
Maybe this was n
One concern I have is about stepping the time backwards. NTP may do
this and you must be aware of its impact on your time stamping
requirements.
HTH
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Steve Kostecke wrote:
[]
> I reported the problem using the correct channels and it was resolved.
>
> You're very lucky that I read the news-group before starting to work
> this morning; I don't always do so. If I had not I would not have seen
> your complaint for many hours, possibly not until ton
On 2009-03-03, David J Taylor wrote:
> 128.4.35.16 is the address I'm seeing.
Something on your end is not working correctly. Both addresses are in
DNS (open, or otherwise) and others have reported that their browsers
are using, or failing over to, the non 128 address.
> The tracert is
> faili
Rob,
The only address supported here are on 128.4.
Dave
Rob wrote:
>David J Taylor wrote:
>
>
>>Terje Mathisen" <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no wrote:
>>
>>
>>>David J Taylor wrote:
>>>
>>>
http://www.ntp.org/ => a blank page in both Firefox and Internet
Explorer Is this correc
On 2009-03-03, David J Taylor wrote:
> Guess I will wait for OpenDNS to become updated...
http://www.opendns.com/support/article/197 lists the OpenDNS nameserver
addresses.
$ host www.ntp.org 208.67.220.220
www.ntp.org A 128.4.35.16
www.ntp.org A 204.152.184.
Steve Kostecke wrote:
> On 2009-03-03, David J Taylor wrote:
>
>> Guess I will wait for OpenDNS to become updated...
>
> http://www.opendns.com/support/article/197 lists the OpenDNS
> nameserver addresses.
>
> $ host www.ntp.org 208.67.220.220
> www.ntp.org A 128.4.35.16
> www.nt
Jason wrote:
> The critical time-stamp of the transactions must be tighter than 100us.
Sorry, no can do, except probabilistically: You can get X% of time
samples within 100us, as measured by the loopstats file on each client
machine, but you cannot guarantee it up front.
OTOH, what you _can_ do
On 2009-03-03, Rob wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>>
>> Tracing route to www.ntp.org [128.4.35.16]
>
> That IP address is dead.
The system is running (I just checked) and apache is responding on the
localhost. It has likely been firewalled off from the w
Steve Kostecke wrote:
>> But it has two IPv4 addresses. Under the address 204.152.184.138 it
>> works OK.
>
> That's our off-site back-up.
Well, in DNS it says:
www.ntp.org has address 128.4.35.16
www.ntp.org has address 204.152.184.138
www.ntp.org has IPv6 address 2001:4f8:0:2::23
So apparently
Rob wrote:
> David J Taylor
> wrote:
>> Terje Mathisen" <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no wrote:
>>> David J Taylor wrote:
http://www.ntp.org/ => a blank page in both Firefox and Internet
Explorer Is this correct?
>>>
>>> No, it works here, now (20 minutes after your post).
>>>
>>> Terje
>>
Terje Mathisen wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Jason wrote:
>> []
>>> G. What have I missed, or gotten confused?
>> []
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason.
>>
>> You forgot to say what the going rate is for the consultancy you want!
>>
>>
>
> Indeed. My standard rate is $200+ per hour.
>
> First of al
Terje Mathisen wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Jason wrote:
>> []
>>> G. What have I missed, or gotten confused?
>> []
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Jason.
>>
>> You forgot to say what the going rate is for the consultancy you want!
>>
>>
>
> Indeed. My standard rate is $200+ per hour.
>
> First of al
Blank for me too.
"Richard B.
Gilbert"
Grin!
Actually, I'm working on that with management, unfortunately without
much progress.
Jason.
David J Taylor wrote:
> Jason wrote:
> []
>> G. What have I missed, or gotten confused?
> []
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason.
>
> You forgot to say what the going rate is for the consultancy you want!
>
>
David J Taylor wrote:
> http://www.ntp.org/ => a blank page in both Firefox and Internet Explorer
>
> Is this correct?
It works for me!
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
Jason wrote:
> Below is a description of the environment, and my thoughts on, a
> resilient and precise NTP configuration. All comments, suggestions, etc.
> are welcome, indeed requested. I am not a software type, rather networks
> and hardware, so please consider that with comments and question
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:3af3f$49aca77c$47c546f2$29...@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
>
>> Just testing. I'm expecting this to fail to post anyway.
>
> Why?
>
Because he hasn't a clue?
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists
David J Taylor wrote:
> Terje Mathisen" <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> http://www.ntp.org/ => a blank page in both Firefox and Internet
>>> Explorer Is this correct?
>>
>> No, it works here, now (20 minutes after your post).
>>
>> Terje
>
> Thanks, Terje. Still bl
tomny...@router1.chaos.home wrote:
> Just testing. I'm expecting this to fail to post anyway.
Moron!
There are test newsgroups if you feel that you absolutely MUST post a
test message!
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
https://lists.
Terje Mathisen" <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> http://www.ntp.org/ => a blank page in both Firefox and Internet
>> Explorer Is this correct?
>
> No, it works here, now (20 minutes after your post).
>
> Terje
Thanks, Terje. Still blank here. I'm using OpenDNS server
David J Taylor wrote:
> http://www.ntp.org/ => a blank page in both Firefox and Internet Explorer
>
> Is this correct?
No, it works here, now (20 minutes after your post).
Terje
--
-
"almost all programming can be viewed as an exercise in caching"
http://www.ntp.org/ => a blank page in both Firefox and Internet Explorer
Is this correct?
Thanks,
David
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
David J Taylor wrote:
> Jason wrote:
> []
>> G. What have I missed, or gotten confused?
> []
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jason.
>
> You forgot to say what the going rate is for the consultancy you want!
>
>
Indeed. My standard rate is $200+ per hour.
First of all: The 10s of us requirement within a site
Jason wrote:
> "precision" (that is, all the hosts should be within a few 10s of
> microseconds, but they could be as much as a small hundreds of
That is going to require very careful engineering. You may find it
better to link the sites only via GPS, rather than have to prioritise
NTP traffi
wrote in message
news:3af3f$49aca77c$47c546f2$29...@news.flashnewsgroups.com...
> Just testing. I'm expecting this to fail to post anyway.
Why?
Groetjes,
Maarten Wiltink
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
https://lists.ntp.org/mailma
42 matches
Mail list logo
