[ntp:questions] Re: NTP sync on a standalone network (Windows 2k)

Danny Mayer mayer at ntp.isc.org
Sun Aug 20 02:48:18 UTC 2006

David Woolley wrote:
> In article <44e63895$0$32471$626a54ce at news.free.fr>,
> Alexandre Carrausse <alex_s_p_a_m at carrausse.com> wrote:
>> "Hal Murray" <hmurray at suespammers.org> wrote in message 
>> news:_L2dnc1lD-lW5HjZnZ2dnUVZ_v6dnZ2d at megapath.net...
>>> Using a single system as the master seems like a reasonable approach
>>> to me.  It's simple so you can understand it.  Just fixup the time
> Definitely.  Peering was never intended to be use for unsychronised
> networks.  It was not designed for creating a consensus time out of
> nothing.  For a start, local clocks are normally clocks of last
> resort, so you would have to prefer them, but even then, the whole
> system would almost certainly wander in frequency and could end up
> with some machines exceeding the 500ppm maximum correctable frequency
> offset.

Dave's new schemes allow this to work very well. It requires manycasting
but it also needs the newer code.

> Assuming that the NT port supports remote configuration, I would suggest
> enabling that when you first stop the master server.  You can then fudge
> the correction, to trim the frequency, without having to stop the server
> again.

I does in the same way as Unix versions but that's going away in the future.


More information about the questions mailing list