Bill,
Wrong. Please read the description of the clock filter algorithm again
and we can discuiss ir further.
Dave
Unruh wrote:
>"David J Taylor"
> writes:
>
>
>
>>Folks,
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>I have the following entries in ntpd.conf:
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>server 192.168.0.2 iburst maxpoll 6
>
> > Can anyone report on NTP performance on Intel Atom based systems (such
> > as http://supermicro.com/products/chassis/1U/502/SC502L-200.cfm)?
> I'm running the latest Ubuntu Netbook version on my Eee 901 PC, afaik
> that one has an Atom chip.
> If you want me to, I can start collecting loopstat
>PS. Previous to this setup, all three NTP appliance servers failed at
>least once, and failed wrong, i.e. they kept responding but with the
>wrong time! Each time this happened, we found one or two critical
>servers that had been rebooted, then used ntpdate to pick the bogus
>server to step t
Andy Yates wrote:
> Unruh wrote:
>> Andy Yates writes:
>>
>>> Hal Murray wrote:
In article <4a15e001$0$18238$da0fe...@news.zen.co.uk>,
Andy Yates writes:
> Does anybody have any figures that shows the effect on accuracy of an
> NTP v3 client using a stratum 1 server rather than
Steve Kostecke wrote:
> Can anyone report on NTP performance on Intel Atom based systems (such
> as http://supermicro.com/products/chassis/1U/502/SC502L-200.cfm)?
>
I'm running the latest Ubuntu Netbook version on my Eee 901 PC, afaik
that one has an Atom chip.
If you want me to, I can start col
Unruh wrote:
[]
> If you mean you have a refclock attached, they have round trip time of
> 0. Thus there is never a minimum and all get used. Ntp's algorithm in
> short is: Save the last 8 polls. Check if the current poll has a
> larger
> roundtrip time than any of those 8. If it does, do not use i
"David J Taylor"
writes:
>Unruh wrote:
>[]
>>> As I have maxpoll set to 6, I would have expected entries no more
>>> than 64s apart. What am I failing to understand here? The poll
>>> values reported in ntpq -p are 64, 64 and 1024 - as expected.
>>
>> You are forgetting that ntp throws away 7/
Unruh wrote:
[]
>> As I have maxpoll set to 6, I would have expected entries no more
>> than 64s apart. What am I failing to understand here? The poll
>> values reported in ntpq -p are 64, 64 and 1024 - as expected.
>
> You are forgetting that ntp throws away 7/8 of the stuff it collects.
> (This
"David J Taylor"
writes:
>Folks,
>I have the following entries in ntpd.conf:
>server 192.168.0.2 iburst maxpoll 6
>server 192.168.0.7 maxpoll 6
>server 0.uk.pool.ntp.org minpoll 10
>.. and the following as the most recent loopstats:
>54974 37901.029 -0.000209922 13.840 0.000108471 0.007233
Can anyone report on NTP performance on Intel Atom based systems (such
as http://supermicro.com/products/chassis/1U/502/SC502L-200.cfm)?
--
Steve Kostecke
NTP Public Services Project - http://support.ntp.org/
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 10:59:54AM +, David J Taylor wrote:
> .. and the following as the most recent loopstats:
>
> 54974 37901.029 -0.000209922 13.840 0.000108471 0.007233 6
> 54974 38229.033 0.000346890 13.846 0.000221473 0.007179 6
> 54974 38754.041 -0.000217131 13.840 0.000287548 0.007132
Folks,
I have the following entries in ntpd.conf:
server 192.168.0.2 iburst maxpoll 6
server 192.168.0.7 maxpoll 6
server 0.uk.pool.ntp.org minpoll 10
.. and the following as the most recent loopstats:
54974 37901.029 -0.000209922 13.840 0.000108471 0.007233 6
54974 38229.033 0.000346890 13.8
12 matches
Mail list logo
