Cal Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] I haven't restarted the
servers yet in case I need to query some more info. Do you think this
could be a contributing factor in this problem?
If you haven't restarted the machines, that's okay. You never have to,
Thank you for the links. I always try to use the documentation before
soliciting help but it's frustrating when I can't find information on a
topic that everyone seems to know about.
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 02:18 +, Harlan Stenn wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cal
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 02:25 +, Steve Kostecke wrote:
On 2008-12-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That still doesn't make sense to me. A peer is objecting to his peer
using a fellow peer as a candidate? Why then does this behavior only
present itself on the version 4.2.4
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 02:34 +, Steve Kostecke wrote:
On 2008-12-02, Cal Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 21:29 +, Steve Kostecke wrote:
Orphan Mode was introduced in version 4.2.2
It sure would be nice if there were more documentation about Orphan
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 09:08 +0100, Maarten Wiltink wrote:
Cal Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] I haven't restarted the
servers yet in case I need to query some more info. Do you think this
could be a contributing factor in this problem?
If you
Calvin Webster said:
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 02:25 +, Steve Kostecke wrote:
On 2008-12-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That still doesn't make sense to me. A peer is objecting to his peer
using a fellow peer as a candidate? Why then does this behavior only
present itself
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 09:46 -0500, Steve Kostecke wrote:
Calvin Webster said:
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 02:25 +, Steve Kostecke wrote:
On 2008-12-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That still doesn't make sense to me. A peer is objecting to his peer
using a fellow peer
Cal Webster said:
Please explain what a peer loop is or point me to the doc page that
explains it. I don't see the disadvantage of having common peers.
peers unfortunately has multiple meanings. The remote time servers
that an ntpd is synced to are often refered to as peers. But these ntpds
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 11:09 -0500, Steve Kostecke wrote:
Cal Webster said:
Please explain what a peer loop is or point me to the doc page that
explains it. I don't see the disadvantage of having common peers.
peers unfortunately has multiple meanings. The remote time servers
that an ntpd
Calvin Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 09:08 +0100, Maarten Wiltink wrote:
Cal Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...] I haven't restarted the
servers yet in case I need to query some more info. Do you
On Wed, 2008-12-03 at 17:53 +0100, Maarten Wiltink wrote:
[...]
Thank you for being specific Maarten. If I were a Linux novice that
information would be very helpful. It's hard to judge skill level from
a few posts. When I say servers I mean the ntpd daemons on each host.
I only restart
Cal Webster wrote:
One of my NTP servers (Server D below) is rejecting both of its peers.
They, on the other hand, each have consistent candidate status for both
of *their* peers. This rejecting server does pick the master server as
it's reference source but has no candidates listed. I don't
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 19:50 +, David Woolley wrote:
Cal Webster wrote:
One of my NTP servers (Server D below) is rejecting both of its peers.
They, on the other hand, each have consistent candidate status for both
of *their* peers. This rejecting server does pick the master server as
On 2008-12-02, David Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
naughty boy will not be a well-behaved Orphan Child.
Orphan and local clock are mutually incompatible!
Nonsense.
Orphan Mode and the Undisciplined Local Clock are merely ways of
providing a time source to ntpd.
As with any set of time
Cal Webster wrote:
ppoll=10, flash=800 peer_loop, keyid=0, ttl=0, offset=6.071,
^^^
Looks like it is objecting to to the client ultimately being its own
server, which I guess is a reasonable thing to do.
___
questions
Steve Kostecke wrote:
On 2008-12-02, David Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
naughty boy will not be a well-behaved Orphan Child.
Orphan and local clock are mutually incompatible!
Nonsense.
Orphan Mode and the Undisciplined Local Clock are merely ways of
providing a time source to ntpd.
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 21:33 +, David Woolley wrote:
Cal Webster wrote:
ppoll=10, flash=800 peer_loop, keyid=0, ttl=0, offset=6.071,
^^^
Looks like it is objecting to to the client ultimately being its own
server, which I guess is a reasonable thing to
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 21:29 +, Steve Kostecke wrote:
On 2008-12-02, Cal Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One of my NTP servers (Server D below) is rejecting both of its peers.
They, on the other hand, each have consistent candidate status for both
of *their* peers. This rejecting
Cal Webster wrote:
How could any of the peers be clients of themselves? Only the master
I think that is the nature of peers. The relationship is symmetric.
server is using the Undisciplined Local Clock as a reference. All the
others appear to be correctly rejecting theirs and using the
David Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Cal Webster wrote:
How could any of the peers be clients of themselves? Only the master
I think that is the nature of peers. The relationship is symmetric.
That still doesn't make sense to me. A peer is objecting to his peer using a
fellow
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Cal Webster) writes:
Cal It sure would be nice if there were more documentation about Orphan
Cal mode. There is nothing in the man or info pages for any version. The
Cal only scraps I could find were a short blurb on the associations page
Cal at
On 2008-12-03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That still doesn't make sense to me. A peer is objecting to his peer
using a fellow peer as a candidate? Why then does this behavior only
present itself on the version 4.2.4 peer and none of the others?
The difference between 4.2.4 and
On 2008-12-02, Cal Webster [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2008-12-02 at 21:29 +, Steve Kostecke wrote:
Orphan Mode was introduced in version 4.2.2
It sure would be nice if there were more documentation about Orphan
mode.
The Official Distribution Documentation is maintained by one
23 matches
Mail list logo
