Martin,
Yes.
Dave
Martin Burnicki wrote:
> Dave,
>
> David L. Mills wrote:
>
>>Martin,
>>
>>There can be a disconnect of serveral months between some gimmick in the
>>development branch and when it appears on supermarket shelves;
>
>
> Of course.
>
>
>>however,
>>the current version does
Nero,
I think it pretty clear what "overridden" means. Additional information
on leap seconds is in the ntpd documentation on the web.
Dave
Nero Imhard wrote:
> David L. Mills schreef:
>
>> the current version [...] does take a vote among the sources on
>> whether to mark the calendar for a le
David L. Mills schreef:
> the current version [...] does take a vote among the sources on
> whether to mark the calendar for a leap. All this is overridden if
> the NIST leapseconds file is present.
How interesting. I had a question about this in another thread. Can I
take this to mean that *if*
Peter,
Peter Laws wrote:
> Peter Laws wrote:
>
>
>> All are running RHEL 4 or 5 and are reasonably current on patches. None
>> use anything but the NTP version distributed with RHEL.
>
> Looks like my brand new, not-yet-in-service DNS/DHCP appliances recorded
> the leap second as well, so that
Peter Laws wrote:
All are running RHEL 4 or 5 and are reasonably current on patches. None
use anything but the NTP version distributed with RHEL.
Looks like my brand new, not-yet-in-service DNS/DHCP appliances recorded
the leap second as well, so that effectively eliminates RHEL, since none
Martin Burnicki wrote:
If ntpd had logged the source from which it had received the leap second
announcement then we would have a clue ...
Which would be helpful.
Looks like I had at least 14 systems report a leap second insertion.
All of them get time from either of two sets of peered syste
Hal,
Hal Murray wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Laws) writes:
>>1 Time(s): Clock: inserting leap second 23:59:60 UTC
>>
>>RHEL 5.2 system running ntpq [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 17 18:14:14 UTC 2008
>>(1) which is the default for that distribution. Grepping aro
Dave,
David L. Mills wrote:
> Martin,
>
> There can be a disconnect of serveral months between some gimmick in the
> development branch and when it appears on supermarket shelves;
Of course.
> however,
> the current version does explicitly announce impending leaps in the
> protostats file and
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Peter Laws) writes:
>1 Time(s): Clock: inserting leap second 23:59:60 UTC
>
>RHEL 5.2 system running ntpq [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 17 18:14:14 UTC 2008
>(1) which is the default for that distribution. Grepping around in the
>logs it appears that
Martin,
There can be a disconnect of serveral months between some gimmick in the
development branch and when it appears on supermarket shelves; however,
the current version does explicitly announce impending leaps in the
protostats file and does take a vote among the sources on whether to
mark
Dave,
David L. Mills wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I head the same comment over the jungle telegraph. However, in the
> distributions that leave here there is no such comment, so it would have
> to come from somewhere else or from a modified distribution.
The message:
Clock: inserting leap second 23:5
Peter,
I head the same comment over the jungle telegraph. However, in the
distributions that leave here there is no such comment, so it would have
to come from somewhere else or from a modified distribution. To help
spot feckless fingers, recent versions have a protostats file in the
statistic
Martin Burnicki wrote:
Unless there is a bug in that specific version of ntpd you are running, ntpd
only propagates leap second announcements if it has received such an
announcement from either an upstream NTP server or reference clock, or from
a leap seconds file.
Which upstream servers are yo
Peter,
Peter Laws wrote:
> 1 Time(s): Clock: inserting leap second 23:59:60 UTC
>
> RHEL 5.2 system running ntpq [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 17 18:14:14 UTC 2008
> (1) which is the default for that distribution. Grepping around in the
> logs it appears that most or all of my RHEL systems did it.
>
Once upon a time, Peter Laws <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>1 Time(s): Clock: inserting leap second 23:59:60 UTC
>
>RHEL 5.2 system running ntpq [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 17 18:14:14 UTC 2008
>(1) which is the default for that distribution. Grepping around in the
>logs it appears that most or all of
1 Time(s): Clock: inserting leap second 23:59:60 UTC
RHEL 5.2 system running ntpq [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu Jan 17 18:14:14 UTC 2008
(1) which is the default for that distribution. Grepping around in the
logs it appears that most or all of my RHEL systems did it.
I got this, too, on at least one
16 matches
Mail list logo
