On Sun, 22 Feb 2015 10:32:09 +0100, Terje Mathisen
terje.mathi...@tmsw.no wrote:
The design is to always compare all servers against the rest (i.e.
median value), dropping the outlier, then repeat until there is a quorum
remaining.
Pruning should only happen if there are a too many servers,
Roger wrote:
On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 18:44:54 + (UTC), William Unruh
un...@invalid.ca wrote:
Why should it not continue to poll it? It should be pruned as a bad
ticker by the ntpd algorihm, and thus not affect the clock discipline.
But that offset might be just a temporary abberation and that
On Sat, 21 Feb 2015 18:44:54 + (UTC), William Unruh
un...@invalid.ca wrote:
Why should it not continue to poll it? It should be pruned as a bad
ticker by the ntpd algorihm, and thus not affect the clock discipline.
But that offset might be just a temporary abberation and that source
come back
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:19:43 +, Roger
invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
Terje made the suggestion about too few servers. DNS returns 4
IP addresses at a time. By having four lines ntpd could have 12
different IP addresses returned if it used all four lines.
Roger, repeat after me: 4 times 4
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 23:56:46 GMT, Brian Inglis
brian.ing...@systematicsw.ab.ca wrote:
Add iburst preempt to the ends of your pool server lines to
improve startup and drop poorer sources.
I'm only making one change at a time. That will come later.
Using one pool line ntpd slowly increases the
On 21 Feb 2015 07:54:50 GMT, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
It looks like you have created your own problem.
What problem are you talking about?
--
Roger
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
On 21 Feb 2015 10:52:40 GMT, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Roger invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
On 21 Feb 2015 07:54:50 GMT, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
It looks like you have created your own problem.
What problem are you talking about?
Your problem to get enough good servers.
When did I
Roger wrote:
On 21 Feb 2015 10:52:40 GMT, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Roger invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
On 21 Feb 2015 07:54:50 GMT, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
It looks like you have created your own problem.
What problem are you talking about?
Your problem to get enough good
Roger writes:
Using one pool line ntpd slowly increases the number of servers
until it is happy but hasn't dropped any, not even an obviously
rogue one. As DNS only returns 4 IP addresses that is the
maximum it can start with and why it has to build up its
numbers.
Yes, that is because
Le 21 févr. 2015 à 10:00, Roger invalid@invalid.invalid a écrit :
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 19:19:43 +, Roger
invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
Terje made the suggestion about too few servers. DNS returns 4
IP addresses at a time. By having four lines ntpd could have 12
different IP
Roger invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
On 20 Feb 2015 19:29:44 GMT, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Why not just:
pool pool.ntp.org
That should be enough.
I did have just one line pool uk.pool.ntp.org but the rogue
Did I write pool uk.pool.ntp.org? I don't think so...
No, you didn't. Did I
Roger invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
On 21 Feb 2015 07:54:50 GMT, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
It looks like you have created your own problem.
What problem are you talking about?
Your problem to get enough good servers.
___
questions mailing list
Roger invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
On 21 Feb 2015 10:52:40 GMT, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Roger invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
On 21 Feb 2015 07:54:50 GMT, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
It looks like you have created your own problem.
What problem are you talking about?
Your problem
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:15:31 +0100, Terje Mathisen
terje.mathi...@tmsw.no wrote:
Rob wrote:
Roger invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
http://www.pool.ntp.org/scores/90.155.73.34
How does one alert an operator that their server is sick?
Checking back through my peerstats I see that last entry
Roger wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:15:31 +0100, Terje Mathisen
terje.mathi...@tmsw.no wrote:
Rob wrote:
Roger invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
http://www.pool.ntp.org/scores/90.155.73.34
How does one alert an operator that their server is sick?
Checking back through my peerstats I see
Rob wrote:
Roger invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
http://www.pool.ntp.org/scores/90.155.73.34
How does one alert an operator that their server is sick?
Checking back through my peerstats I see that last entry
which was okay was 2015-02-16 15:08:56.
There is no need. The pool system has
On 20/02/15 08:45, Roger wrote:
http://www.pool.ntp.org/scores/90.155.73.34
How does one alert an operator that their server is sick?
Checking back through my peerstats I see that last entry
which was okay was 2015-02-16 15:08:56.
You could run whois on the address and contact the
http://www.pool.ntp.org/scores/90.155.73.34
How does one alert an operator that their server is sick?
Checking back through my peerstats I see that last entry
which was okay was 2015-02-16 15:08:56.
--
Roger
___
questions mailing list
Roger invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
http://www.pool.ntp.org/scores/90.155.73.34
How does one alert an operator that their server is sick?
Checking back through my peerstats I see that last entry
which was okay was 2015-02-16 15:08:56.
There is no need. The pool system has sent a mail
snipped
The server was still in the peerstats at 18:25 the following day
when I did a reboot. So, after approximately 27 hours, ntpd
hadn't dropped it. Obviously, my system isn't performing as you
say it should. Can you, or anyone else, provide a clue as to how
I might determine if my
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:38:50 +0100, Terje Mathisen
terje.mathi...@tmsw.no wrote:
Roger wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:15:31 +0100, Terje Mathisen
terje.mathi...@tmsw.no wrote:
Rob wrote:
Roger invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
http://www.pool.ntp.org/scores/90.155.73.34
How does one
Mike Cook wrote:
snipped
The server was still in the peerstats at 18:25 the following day
when I did a reboot. So, after approximately 27 hours, ntpd hadn't
dropped it. Obviously, my system isn't performing as you say it
should. Can you, or anyone else, provide a clue as to how I might
On 20 Feb 2015 19:29:44 GMT, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Why not just:
pool pool.ntp.org
That should be enough.
I did have just one line pool uk.pool.ntp.org but the rogue
Did I write pool uk.pool.ntp.org? I don't think so...
No, you didn't. Did I say that you did? It is what I had in my
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 20:20:01 +, Phil W Lee
p...@lee-family.me.uk wrote:
You may well have mine among them.
I'd appreciate some feedback on how it appears to be performing from
elsewhere.
If 88.96.199.9 looks familiar, drop me an email.
No, yours isn't in there at the moment. The Los Angeles
On 2015-02-20 12:19, Roger wrote:
On 20 Feb 2015 17:49:15 GMT, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Roger invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:45:54 +, Roger
invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
After about 11 minutes it has dropped one, leaving 6 servers.
I'll continue to monitor
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Harlan Stenn st...@ntp.org wrote:
This is interesting. It may be that only 4 responses are returned at a
time, but there has been lots of evidence and experience that depending
on your resolver (most resolvers, from what I've seen), you won't get
the same
Roger invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:45:54 +, Roger
invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
After about 11 minutes it has dropped one, leaving 6 servers.
I'll continue to monitor and report back.
Just to recap, I now have this in my ntp.conf:
pool 0.uk.pool.ntp.org
pool
On 20/02/15 18:46, Roger wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:45:54 +, Roger
invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
After about 11 minutes it has dropped one, leaving 6 servers.
I'll continue to monitor and report back.
Just to recap, I now have this in my ntp.conf:
pool 0.uk.pool.ntp.org
pool
On 20 Feb 2015 17:49:15 GMT, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
Roger invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
On Fri, 20 Feb 2015 12:45:54 +, Roger
invalid@invalid.invalid wrote:
After about 11 minutes it has dropped one, leaving 6 servers.
I'll continue to monitor and report back.
Just to recap, I
On Feb 20, 2015, at 10:55 AM, Jan Ceuleers jan.ceule...@computer.org wrote:
Using dig on a sample of the pool it seems that DNS queries to the pool
only ever return 4 entries.
Per request, yes-- with something like a 150 or 300 second TTL.
Hopefully, you get a different set of hosts returned
30 matches
Mail list logo
