OK, so aside from not worrying about iburst ?
Peter Laws wrote:
Hello, time nerds. :-)
Here's what I want: accurate time to at least a few ms of UTC. Don't
think I have users that need better than that. I'd like the time to be
continuous and not jump around, of course.
Here's what
Richard,
It's a little more complicated than that. If the server is unreachable
when a poll is scheduled, a single poll is sent. If no reply is heard,
the cleint tries again in 64 s and repeats for a total of three times
and returns to the original poll interval. If not heard after that, it
ba
Dennis Hilberg, Jr. wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> Iburst simply causes ntpd to send eight requests to a server at
>> intervals of two seconds when it initializes. The eight replies that
>> will normally result allow ntpd to fill its filter pipeline and make a
>> pretty good guess at wha
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> Iburst simply causes ntpd to send eight requests to a server at
> intervals of two seconds when it initializes. The eight replies that
> will normally result allow ntpd to fill its filter pipeline and make a
> pretty good guess at what time it is. Subsequent request
Peter Laws wrote:
> Hello, time nerds. :-)
>
> Here's what I want: accurate time to at least a few ms of UTC. Don't
> think I have users that need better than that. I'd like the time to be
> continuous and not jump around, of course.
>
>
> Here's what I have: 3 GPS clocks (two old Datum T
Hello, time nerds. :-)
Here's what I want: accurate time to at least a few ms of UTC. Don't
think I have users that need better than that. I'd like the time to be
continuous and not jump around, of course.
Here's what I have: 3 GPS clocks (two old Datum TymServe 2100s and one
unknown).
