[ntp:questions] Remaining synced on an unsynchronised peer?

David Woolley david at ex.djwhome.demon.invalid
Tue Dec 1 07:43:34 UTC 2009

unruh wrote:
> On 2009-11-30, Michael Butow <michael.buetow at comsoft.de> wrote:
>>> Use the cohort option?
>> Seems to me I would need to move to manycasting to do that, and I am not 
>> even sure I want to... I want the peers (in-system) to both/all "give up" 
>> as soon as they no longer see the world outside the system.
> So why in the world do you have them listed as servers for each other if
> you do not want them acting as servers for each other?

I don't see them as being servers for each other, but rather as a 
reversible connection.  I think that that is what is supposed to happen 
as far as selecting stratum and system peer is concerned, although I 
don't think you can avoid some tendency to have one's one time fed back, 
as not just the system peer contributes to the time.

It will take a long time to wind up the stratum number, but, unless you 
have prphan mode, it should happen until it eventually reaches 16.

More information about the questions mailing list