Rob wrote:
Uwe Klein wrote:
Abu Abdullah wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:41 AM, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added
to the BlackLists wrote:
unruh wrote:
He has gotten himself totally confused about what his
real job and desires are, it seems to me.
Perhaps its something lik
Uwe Klein wrote:
> Abu Abdullah wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:41 AM, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added
>> to the BlackLists wrote:
>>
>>
>>>unruh wrote:
>>>
He has gotten himself totally confused about what his
real job and desires are, it seems to me.
>>>
>>>Perhaps its
Abu Abdullah wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:41 AM, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added
to the BlackLists wrote:
unruh wrote:
He has gotten himself totally confused about what his
real job and desires are, it seems to me.
Perhaps its something like, he needs to provide ntp to the
p
On 2013-03-07, Abu Abdullah wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:41 AM, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added
> to the BlackLists wrote:
>
>> unruh wrote:
>> > He has gotten himself totally confused about what his
>> > real job and desires are, it seems to me.
>>
>> Perhaps its something like,
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 12:41 AM, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added
to the BlackLists wrote:
> unruh wrote:
> > He has gotten himself totally confused about what his
> > real job and desires are, it seems to me.
>
> Perhaps its something like, he needs to provide ntp to the
> pool due to
unruh wrote:
> He has gotten himself totally confused about what his
> real job and desires are, it seems to me.
Perhaps its something like, he needs to provide ntp to the
pool due to really high vendor zone useage by his appliances?
Still sounds like two machines would be better than one.
--
On 2013-03-06, Rob wrote:
> unruh wrote:
>> On 2013-03-05, Rob wrote:
>>> unruh wrote:
On 2013-03-05, Rob wrote:
> David Woolley wrote:
>> Abu Abdullah wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Does this mean ntpd is not supposed to be run in parallel? Is there any
>>
>> It is not s
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 2013-03-06 14:20, Brian Utterback wrote:
> On 3/5/2013 11:25 PM, Abu Abdullah wrote:
>> Thanks Bria, we are using RedHat so I think the equivalent is KVM
>> but right now I'm trying to find if there is an easier way.
>
> Zones are easier to use and
On 3/5/2013 11:25 PM, Abu Abdullah wrote:
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Brian Utterback
mailto:brian.utterb...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Based on what is being requested, I can suggest one way to
accomplish it, but it involves using an OS feature, rather than
using an NTP feature.
>
> Maybe best for him is to use virtualization and run all the public services
> in the virtual machine. Hacking a virtual machine is another step beyond
> disturbing an ntp process.
>
I hope i can avoid this option.
___
questions mailing list
question
unruh wrote:
> On 2013-03-05, Rob wrote:
>> unruh wrote:
>>> On 2013-03-05, Rob wrote:
David Woolley wrote:
> Abu Abdullah wrote:
>
>>
>> Does this mean ntpd is not supposed to be run in parallel? Is there any
>
> It is not seen as something anyone would want to d
> > In this case we will not have to change the NTP
> > IPs in the clients configurations (private).
>
> Use names, instead of IPs?
>
>
My mistake, in all cases we will not need to change the IP since we can
connect the private domain through a different IP than the public one.
___
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 11:18 PM, Brian Utterback wrote:
> Based on what is being requested, I can suggest one way to accomplish it,
> but it involves using an OS feature, rather than using an NTP feature.
>
> If it is feasible to run Oracle Solaris on the system in question, you
> could use the S
On 3/5/2013 4:41 PM, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
The two NTP processes cannot serve identical times; there will be
a difference between the two instances!
A single instance (on a single interface) can't (or more properly,
won't) serve identical times, since requests by nature occur at
different
On 3/5/2013 4:59 PM, Rob wrote:
This usually without considering the situation of the poster in more
detail, and often with information that dates from the distant past.
SYNTAX ERROR.
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp
On 2013-03-05, Rob wrote:
> David Woolley wrote:
>> Rob wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I could understand why someone would want to run one instance that
>>> controls the clock, and another instance that only serves time to
>>> clients on the (inter)net and cannot control the clock.
>>
>> One would normally
On 2013-03-05, Rob wrote:
> unruh wrote:
>> On 2013-03-05, Rob wrote:
>>> David Woolley wrote:
Abu Abdullah wrote:
>
> Does this mean ntpd is not supposed to be run in parallel? Is there any
It is not seen as something anyone would want to do.
>>>
>>> I could unders
David Woolley wrote:
> Rob wrote:
>
>>
>> I could understand why someone would want to run one instance that
>> controls the clock, and another instance that only serves time to
>> clients on the (inter)net and cannot control the clock.
>
> One would normally simply set suitable access restrictio
Abu Abdullah wrote:
option to disable adjusting the system clock?
I believe there is, but that instance would become a pure server. The
time that ntpd serves is always that in the local system clock.
I would appreciate if you can provide it so at least i can get rid of these
warnings.
Think
On 3/4/2013 11:13 PM, Abu Abdullah wrote:
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:12 PM, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added
to the BlackLists wrote:
Abu Abdullah wrote:
I'm trying to run two instances of ntp
What problem are you trying to solve?
The two NTP processes cannot serve identical time
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
The two NTP processes cannot serve identical times; there will be
a difference between the two instances!
They will both serve the same time, which is the time in the local
system clock.
___
questions mailing list
quest
Rob wrote:
I could understand why someone would want to run one instance that
controls the clock, and another instance that only serves time to
clients on the (inter)net and cannot control the clock.
One would normally simply set suitable access restrictions for un-named
clients. I think th
Abu Abdullah wrote:
> from the responses i start to think that this scenario
> is not supposed to be implemented and I'm trying to figure
> out why (and to find another solution).
Why? Because its not what 99.% do with ntpd.
IIRC, advertises
that it does something like I'm guessing your
Based on what is being requested, I can suggest one way to accomplish
it, but it involves using an OS feature, rather than using an NTP feature.
If it is feasible to run Oracle Solaris on the system in question, you
could use the Solaris Zones feature to do what you want. You could have
one in
unruh wrote:
> On 2013-03-05, Rob wrote:
>> David Woolley wrote:
>>> Abu Abdullah wrote:
>>>
Does this mean ntpd is not supposed to be run in parallel? Is there any
>>>
>>> It is not seen as something anyone would want to do.
>>
>> I could understand why someone would want to run one
On 3/5/2013 9:37 AM, unruh wrote:
> ntpd both controls the clock and serves time.
> Why would you want to split those?
Because they want to do funny things with the service,
like serve time with a offset,
while keeping the local machine as close to UTC as possible?
I've had many people ask me a
> >>
> >> > each with different interface.
> >> > I want to have instance for each network.
>
> Why?
>
mentioned it before
> We have a requirement for NTP service for two different networks: public
> (not important, can have outages), private (important). we are trying to
> have separate pro
>
> Yes, I meant try "interface ignore lo0"
> instead of "interface ignore lo".
>
> For that matter try "interface ignore ipv4"?
>
I will try this
>
>
> What version of ntpd are you running 4.2.7p359?
>
Not this one. I'm not on the machine now but it was the latest code one
week back, maybe 4
>
> Be aware that if the hope is that the private network be immune to
> hacking from the public network, or immune to leakage of information
> from private to public, there cannot be a computer common to both
> networks.
>
> There are hardware solutions to this dilemma, specifically GPS
> receiver
On 2013-03-05, Abu Abdullah wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:12 PM, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added
> to the BlackLists wrote:
>
>> Abu Abdullah wrote:
>> > I'm trying to run two instances of ntp
>>
>> They are going to fight each other to discipline the system clock?
>>
>
> Does this
On 2013-03-05, Rob wrote:
> David Woolley wrote:
>> Abu Abdullah wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Does this mean ntpd is not supposed to be run in parallel? Is there any
>>
>> It is not seen as something anyone would want to do.
>
> I could understand why someone would want to run one instance that
> controls
Abu Abdullah wrote:
> In this case we will not have to change the NTP
> IPs in the clients configurations (private).
Use names, instead of IPs?
--
E-Mail Sent to this address
will be added to the BlackLists.
___
questions mailing list
questions@l
Abu Abdullah wrote:
> BlackLists wrote:
>> Abu Abdullah wrote:
>>> I tried running multiple instances with the following
>>> configuration to avoid listening to the same local
>>> interface by the two instances:
>>> interface ignore lo
>>
>> lo0 ?
>
> loopback address, but it seems it only disabl
In article
,
Abu Abdullah wrote:
> >
> > option to disable adjusting the system clock?
> >>
> >
> > I believe there is, but that instance would become a pure server. The
> > time that ntpd serves is always that in the local system clock.
> >
>
> I would appreciate if you can provide it so at le
>
> option to disable adjusting the system clock?
>>
>
> I believe there is, but that instance would become a pure server. The
> time that ntpd serves is always that in the local system clock.
>
I would appreciate if you can provide it so at least i can get rid of these
warnings.
>
> As someone
David Woolley wrote:
> Abu Abdullah wrote:
>
>>
>> Does this mean ntpd is not supposed to be run in parallel? Is there any
>
> It is not seen as something anyone would want to do.
I could understand why someone would want to run one instance that
controls the clock, and another instance that onl
Abu Abdullah wrote:
Does this mean ntpd is not supposed to be run in parallel? Is there any
It is not seen as something anyone would want to do.
option to disable adjusting the system clock?
I believe there is, but that instance would become a pure server. The
time that ntpd serves is a
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 11:12 PM, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added
to the BlackLists wrote:
> Abu Abdullah wrote:
> > I'm trying to run two instances of ntp
>
> They are going to fight each other to discipline the system clock?
>
Does this mean ntpd is not supposed to be run in parallel?
Abu Abdullah wrote:
> I'm trying to run two instances of ntp
They are going to fight each other to discipline the system clock?
> each with different interface.
> I want to have instance for each network.
> I tried running multiple instances with the following
> configuration to avoid listeni
Hi,
I'm trying to run two instances of ntp each with different interface. I
want to have instance for each network. I tried running multiple instances
with the following configuration to avoid listening to the same local
interface by the two instances:
interface ignore lo
interface ignore wildcar
40 matches
Mail list logo
