I'm trying to determine what this section of an ntp.log is telling me.
This is from a default xntpd instance on AIX 5.3.
ntp.conf has two severs listed, 34 and 97, with the '34' server preferred.
The first couple of lines are the last in a *long* list of hourly logged
offset messages.
It appear
A classic example of the adage " A man with two clocks doesn't know what the
time is" . So neither can NTP.
It will hop between the two until the two agree. This is a bad configuration.
Le 18 avr. 2014 à 05:53, GregL a écrit :
< snip>
> Right now, my plan is to add the "-x" option to the xntpd
>
>
> A classic example of the adage " A man with two clocks doesn't know what
> the time is" . So neither can NTP.
> It will hop between the two until the two agree. This is a bad
> configuration.
>
>
That is certainly the way it feels! ;-)
>
> What you should do is to add more servers to the
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 09:01:09AM -0500, GregL wrote:
> > What you should do is to add more servers to the config.
>
> What about the idea of going to only one entry, but that entry is served by
> a DNS load balancer to choose one of two internal time servers to check.
> Each of those, is conf
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 09:01:09AM -0500, GregL wrote:
> > > What you should do is to add more servers to the config.
> >
> > What about the idea of going to only one entry, but that entry is served
> by
> > a DNS load balancer to choose one of two internal time servers to check.
> > Each of t
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 10:38:10AM -0500, GregL wrote:
> But, was the "sychronization lost" message *because* ntp saw the time
> difference so great on peer servers...and chose one to synch to...resulting
> in the time reset message?
It seems so. Not sure how close this is to the version you are
r
On 2014-04-18, GregL wrote:
>> On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 09:01:09AM -0500, GregL wrote:
>> > > What you should do is to add more servers to the config.
>> >
>> > What about the idea of going to only one entry, but that entry is served
>> by
>> > a DNS load balancer to choose one of two internal ti
> > Yes, clearly the root of the most recent problem was a faulty
> configuration
> > that allowed our internal time servers to grow to nearly 50 seconds apart
> > at some pointand that wreaked havoc in many many areas.
>
> What was causing that. Clearly one, or both, are not getting their time
On 2014-04-18, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2014-04-18, GregL wrote:
>
>> Now, I'm just planning on making changes to the ntp.conf, like adding
>> the "-x" parameter. I'm hoping that that will prevent huge time
>> resets backwards in time...should that ever be even possible again.
>
> ntpd will res
On 2014-04-18, Steve Kostecke wrote:
> On 2014-04-18, William Unruh wrote:
>
>> On 2014-04-18, GregL wrote:
>>
>>> Now, I'm just planning on making changes to the ntp.conf, like adding
>>> the "-x" parameter. I'm hoping that that will prevent huge time
>>> resets backwards in time...should that
On 18.04.2014 20:45, questions-requ...@lists.ntp.org digested:
> From: GregL
>
> > > What about the idea of going to only one entry, but that entry is
> > > served by a DNS load balancer to choose one of two internal time
> > > servers to check.
> >
> > Well, that will [...]
>
> I'm wrestling wi
On 2014-04-18, GregL wrote:
>> > Yes, clearly the root of the most recent problem was a faulty
>> configuration
>> > that allowed our internal time servers to grow to nearly 50 seconds apart
>> > at some pointand that wreaked havoc in many many areas.
>>
>> What was causing that. Clearly one,
On Fri, Apr 18, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Jochen Bern wrote:
> Am I missing something, or will the setup described above (and assuming
> that the two servers disagree again) *force* your clients to do what you
> just called "the far greater problem"? Namely, being randomly split
> 50/50 between the two ser
Greg,
As others have suggested, any client running NTP should point to *at least* 3
time sources (usually ~5 is preferred)... The reason
being if one server goes wacko, but the other two agree, then the client knows
to X out the bad one and keep the two others. With
only two you are essentially
14 matches
Mail list logo
