Greetings,
I have ntpd installed (ntpq [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jun 4 15:13:06 UTC 2007
(1) and running but the time on the ntp host does not appear to be
synching with the nominated external time references. Any assistance much
appreciated.
Details as follows:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] etc]# ntpq -p
David J Taylor wrote:
[]
> By the way, that query doesn't work for me, so are you sure that
> server is running NTP? Do you have permission to access it? You
> might be better off with "pool" servers:
>
> 0.pool.ntp.org
> 1.pool.ntp.org
>
> Cheers,
> David
Oops, I see you are using the Austral
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I have ntpd installed (ntpq [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jun 4 15:13:06 UTC
> 2007 (1) and running but the time on the ntp host does not appear to
> be
> synching with the nominated external time references. Any assistance
> much
> appreciated.
>
> Details as fo
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I have ntpd installed (ntpq [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jun 4 15:13:06 UTC 2007
That is not a standard version number. Who allocated the "@1.1570-o"
part of the version number? You may be better off getting support from
them.
> (1) and running but the time on the ntp h
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I have ntpd installed (ntpq [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jun 4 15:13:06 UTC 2007
> (1) and running but the time on the ntp host does not appear to be
> synching with the nominated external time references. Any assistance much
> appreciated.
>
> Details as f
On 2008-04-12, David Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I have ntpd installed (ntpq [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jun 4 15:13:06 UTC
>> 2007
>
> That is not a standard version number.
Really? On my system running 4.2.5p54 built from sources downloaded from
www.ntp.org I se
Tony,
Why do you have a local refclock configured?
Why are you not using the 'iburst' keyword on your server lines?
Have you seen http://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Support/ConfiguringNTP ?
--
Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ntpforum.isc.org - be a member!
__
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Richard B. Gilbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>> writes:
Richard> BTW, if you didn't wait at least 30 minutes between starting ntpd
Richard> and getting the ntpq banner, you wasted your time! Ntpd generally
Richard> requires about that much time to figure out exac
Harlan Stenn wrote:
>
> Why do you have a local refclock configured?
Because he's using an out of the box configuration. That, is probably
the main reason that people have them configured. You really need to
ask the people who put in the box, but I suspect they don't know, either.
__
On 2008-04-12, David Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Harlan Stenn wrote:
>
>> Why do you have a local refclock configured?
>
> Because he's using an out of the box configuration. That, is probably
> the main reason that people have them configured. You really need to
> ask the people who put
>The problem here is that the distribution does not contain a decent
>assortment of example configuration files for common configurations. So
>the OS distributors/aggregators/vendors each cobble together their own
>one size fits all configuration file.
But does a local refclock make sense in a ty
On 2008-04-12, Richard B. Gilbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> BTW, if you didn't wait at least 30 minutes between starting ntpd and
> getting the ntpq banner, you wasted your time!
Nonsense.
After only two polls you can see if your ntpd is able to contact the
remote time servers. You don't nee
"Hal Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> The problem here is that the distribution does not contain a decent
>> assortment of example configuration files for common configurations.
>> So the OS distributors/aggregators/vendors each cobble together their
>> own on
On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 06:34:57 +, David J Taylor wrote:
> David J Taylor wrote:
> []
>> By the way, that query doesn't work for me, so are you sure that
>> server is running NTP? Do you have permission to access it? You
>> might be better off with "pool" servers:
>>
>> 0.pool.ntp.org
>> 1.po
David Woolley wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I have ntpd installed (ntpq [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jun 4 15:13:06 UTC 2007
>
> That is not a standard version number. Who allocated the "@1.1570-o"
> part of the version number? You may be better off getting support from
> them.
>
We do.
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> I have ntpd installed (ntpq [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Jun 4 15:13:06 UTC 2007
Please see http://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Dev/EmbeddedVersionStringContent
--
Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
http://ntpforum.isc.org - be a member!
_
16 matches
Mail list logo
