[ntp:questions] ntpd sensitivity to ordering of servers in ntp.conf?

2016-02-25 Thread Weber
Bored? Need something to do? You could try helping me with this puzzle regarding ntpd. This is a rather long message, so if you're otherwise busy I won't be offended if you skip it. -- Executive Summary -- The delay and offset values measured by ntpd appear to change slightly when the order o

Re: [ntp:questions] ntpd sensitivity to ordering of servers in ntp.conf?

2016-02-25 Thread Miroslav Lichvar
On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 02:49:48AM -0800, Weber wrote: > ntp.conf is specifies both servers with minpoll 4/maxpoll 4. Peer and loop > statistics are enabled. > By just changing the order of servers in ntp.conf the delay and offset > values in peerstats are swapped. Now it is A with 60us delay and

[ntp:questions] Fwd: Re: ntpd sensitivity to ordering of servers in ntp.conf?

2016-02-25 Thread Weber
Miroslav, You are a wise man, sir! That is exactly what was happening. I tried adding a new first server entry in ntp.conf -- for a non-existent IP on the same subnet. Whatever was going to sleep or timing out during the delay between polls got refreshed when ntpd tried to contact the first (

[ntp:questions] Idea to improve ntpd accuracy

2016-02-25 Thread Weber
This may or may not be worthwhile, but I thought I'd throw it out there and see what happens: Recent work testing some microsecond-accurate NTP servers lead me to an idea that could improve accuracy of measurements made by ntpd. These NTP servers have hardware timestamps on receive but that's

Re: [ntp:questions] Idea to improve ntpd accuracy

2016-02-25 Thread Danny Mayer
Already thought of so it's a good idea! See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-ntp-checksum-trailer/ for details. Danny On 2/25/2016 4:52 PM, Weber wrote: > This may or may not be worthwhile, but I thought I'd throw it out there > and see what happens: > > Recent work testing some micro

Re: [ntp:questions] Idea to improve ntpd accuracy

2016-02-25 Thread Weber
Thanks for the link. I'm not surprised that someone else already had the idea. I was poking around and see that 1588 does something similar with a "follow up" packet. On 2/25/2016 7:09 PM, Danny Mayer wrote: Already thought of so it's a good idea! See https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ie

Re: [ntp:questions] Idea to improve ntpd accuracy

2016-02-25 Thread Danny Mayer
On 2/25/2016 10:29 PM, Weber wrote: > Thanks for the link. I'm not surprised that someone else already had the > idea. I was poking around and see that 1588 does something similar with > a "follow up" packet. > I should have mentioned that this checksum trailer extension field is needed to get th