[ntp:questions] Re: NTP stepping issue

David Woolley david at djwhome.demon.co.uk
Wed Oct 13 06:51:09 UTC 2004

In article <416CA8D9.2050803 at udel.edu>, David L. Mills <mills at udel.edu> wrote:

> No, I did intend a small nonzero value. If I understood the question 

This reply doesn't make sense.  It might have made a little more sense
if it weren't top posted, so I could work out which statement you 
were referring to, but even if we assume it is the tinker command 
parameters, the original article:

1) had no mention of any value for tinker step;

2) only mentioned tinkering a parameter to exactly zero;

3) didn't mention that you had made any prior suggestion.

Setting step to a very small value would effectively force ntpd into
permanent frequency mode, stepping the time and frequency every  20 
or so minutes.

> correctly, the wish was to step the clock no matter what the offset. I 
> wouldn't recommend that, but it can be done.

The original article said that stepping was absolutely unacceptable after
any initialisation step.

David Woolley wrote:

> In article <mailman.23.1097522252.72027.questions at lists.ntp.isc.org>,
> Robert Rati <Robert.Rati at motorola.com> wrote:
>>tinker panic 0
> I assume that this is a typo and you meant "tinker step 0".

More information about the questions mailing list