[ntp:questions] losing time fast

David Taylor david-taylor at blueyonder.co.uk.invalid
Fri Jul 13 05:54:02 UTC 2012


On 12/07/2012 20:56, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the 
BlackLists wrote:
> I didn't see anything that would allow ntp to runaway.
>
> Fritz Wuehler wrote:
>> # Sample /etc/ntp.conf:  Configuration file for ntpd.
>> server  0.asia.pool.ntp.org
>> server  1.asia.pool.ntp.org
>> server  2.asia.pool.ntp.org
>> server  3.asia.pool.ntp.org
>
> If you use a more recent version Dev 4.2.7p288,
>   (instead of 4.2.4p7 from May 2009);
>
> You can replace those 4 lines with something like:
> pool asia.pool.ntp.org preempt iburst
> restrict source nomodify
>
> NTP will automatically add servers (up to maxclock),
>   and as it drops some, it will add more;
>    eventually, you will likely end up with
>     a clique of servers that have lower offset to you,
>     and are also close in time to each other.
[]

Two questions (if I may) about the pool command:

- is the "preempt" needed, or is it implicit in the pool command?

- can one have multiple pool commands?  For example, at the moment on 
one widely travelled PC I have:

server 0.uk.pool.ntp.org iburst
server 1.uk.pool.ntp.org iburst
server 2.uk.pool.ntp.org iburst
server 0.nl.pool.ntp.org iburst

How would that best be replaced?  Something like the following, perhaps?

pool uk.pool.ntp.org iburst
pool nl.pool.ntp.org iburst

Is ntp clever enough to allocate servers from a mix of the two "pool" 
commands?

Thanks
-- 
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu




More information about the questions mailing list