Florin Andrei wrote:
> Let's assume I upgrade to a newer version that accepts
> the "source" keyword. Then how about this config?
>
> Is there are risk of too many internal servers picking
> other internal servers to sync their time - and not
> enough servers using external sources?
> Should I
Florin Andrei wrote:
> On 03/26/2011 03:36 AM, Rob wrote:
>> Florin Andrei wrote:
>>>
>>> restrict 0.us.pool.ntp.org mask 255.255.255.255 nomodify notrap noquery
>>> restrict 1.us.pool.ntp.org mask 255.255.255.255 nomodify notrap noquery
>>> restrict 2.us.pool.ntp.org mask 255.255.255.255 nomodif
Florin Andrei wrote:
On 03/26/2011 08:46 AM, Dave Hart wrote:
You probably want iburst on each of those server lines, to sync the
clock in under 15 seconds instead of a few minutes.
I thought that was frowned upon, to use iburst with public servers?
(I do use iburst, from all the other machi
On 3/28/2011 1:16 PM, Florin Andrei wrote:
On 03/26/2011 08:46 AM, Dave Hart wrote:
You probably want iburst on each of those server lines, to sync the
clock in under 15 seconds instead of a few minutes.
I thought that was frowned upon, to use iburst with public servers?
(I do use iburst, fr
On 2011-03-25, Florin Andrei wrote:
> Two groups of machines in two datacenters, VPN line in between.
A VPN will introduce jitter into any associations between your two data
centers. An unencrypted UDP connection would be better.
> Two NTP servers in each datacenter, sync'ing to public servers.
On 2011-03-28, Florin Andrei wrote:
> On 03/26/2011 08:46 AM, Dave Hart wrote:
>
>> You probably want iburst on each of those server lines, to sync the
>> clock in under 15 seconds instead of a few minutes.
>
> I thought that was frowned upon, to use iburst with public servers?
>
> (I do use ibur
Florin Andrei wrote:
On 03/26/2011 08:46 AM, Dave Hart wrote:
You probably want iburst on each of those server lines, to sync the
clock in under 15 seconds instead of a few minutes.
I thought that was frowned upon, to use iburst with public servers?
(I do use iburst, from all the other machi
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Florin Andrei wrote:
>
> Let's assume I upgrade to a newer version that accepts the
> "source" keyword. Then how about this config?
>
> Is there are risk of too many internal servers picking other
> internal servers to sync their time - and not enough servers
> usi
Let's assume I upgrade to a newer version that accepts the "source"
keyword. Then how about this config?
Is there are risk of too many internal servers picking other internal
servers to sync their time - and not enough servers using external
sources? Should I skew the selection using "prefer"
On 03/26/2011 03:36 AM, Rob wrote:
Florin Andrei wrote:
restrict 0.us.pool.ntp.org mask 255.255.255.255 nomodify notrap noquery
restrict 1.us.pool.ntp.org mask 255.255.255.255 nomodify notrap noquery
restrict 2.us.pool.ntp.org mask 255.255.255.255 nomodify notrap noquery
restrict 3.us.pool.ntp
On 03/26/2011 08:46 AM, Dave Hart wrote:
You probably want iburst on each of those server lines, to sync the
clock in under 15 seconds instead of a few minutes.
I thought that was frowned upon, to use iburst with public servers?
(I do use iburst, from all the other machines to the internal NT
On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 10:36 AM, "Rob" wrote:
> Florin Andrei wrote:
>> ###
>> server 0.us.pool.ntp.org
>> server 1.us.pool.ntp.org
>> server 2.us.pool.ntp.org
>> server 3.us.pool.ntp.org
>>
>> restrict 0.us.pool.ntp.org mask 255.255.255.25
Florin Andrei wrote:
> Two groups of machines in two datacenters, VPN line in between. Two NTP
> servers in each datacenter, sync'ing to public servers. Local networks
> are gig ethernet.
>
> Sometimes there seem to be issues with the public servers, so I figured
> I may as well use the "peer"
Florin Andrei wrote:
> restrict 0.us.pool.ntp.org mask 255.255.255.255 nomodify notrap noquery
> restrict 1.us.pool.ntp.org mask 255.255.255.255 nomodify notrap noquery
> restrict 2.us.pool.ntp.org mask 255.255.255.255 nomodify notrap noquery
> restrict 3.us.pool.ntp.org mask 255.255.255.255 nomodi
Two groups of machines in two datacenters, VPN line in between. Two NTP
servers in each datacenter, sync'ing to public servers. Local networks
are gig ethernet.
Sometimes there seem to be issues with the public servers, so I figured
I may as well use the "peer" command to at least keep the loc
15 matches
Mail list logo
