[ntp:questions] Facing some issue in the ntp version Ver. 4.2.6p1

unruh unruh at invalid.ca
Tue Jul 24 15:08:38 UTC 2012


On 2012-07-24, bhargav p <bhargav.1226 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thanks for reply.
>
> I am confused with what is a leaf node and non-leaf node.

A leaf sits at the end of a branch. I presume it is a node on which
nothing else depends. Ie, no other machine uses it as a server. 


>
>>>>>It sounds to me that you have effectively removed the local clock
> entirely.  The local clock needs to be treated as a refclock, so that time
> served remains valid indefinitely.  On modern ntpd's, even without orphan
> mode or local clock drivers, a non-leaf node will continue to serve time
> long after its sources have gone away.  However the root distance will
> increase until its clients decide it is too great
>
> I have not removed local clock. I just removed the check, still my local
> address configuration is preset in my conf file.
>

And why have you not removed the local clock. It is idiotic to use it as
a refclock, especially if your computer is not being used as a server by
a whole bunch of other machines. It does nothing but confuse everything.
Remove it!

> In why earlier versions of ntpd this flag check is not there?
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 2:11 AM, David Woolley <
> david at ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>
>> bhargav p wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Coming to actual problem in my scenario, In my conf file i have configured
>>> one server address and local[127.127.1.0] address. As for each peer we are
>>>
>>
>> Why have you done this?  First of all, leaf nodes should never have the
>> local clock pseudo driver defined.  Secondly, with modern versions of ntpd,
>> the only real reason to use one on a non-leaf noed is if you are using a
>> timing source outside of ntpd, in which case the local clock driver will be
>> the only server defined.
>>
>> When you want the whole network to coast together, you should use orphan
>> mode.
>>
>> If you must use the local clock as a fallback, I would advise defining
>> enough real servers to safely outvote it, and setting the clock to within a
>> second or so, before starting ntpd.
>>
>>
>> setting that flag , when I changed the date and trying to set it " ntpd -q
>>> " command , when the first NTP packet is received, for the local address
>>> hash iteration this condition[(!(peer->flags & FLAG_REFCLOCK] is failing
>>> and returning as fit and trying to synchronize with local server and
>>> printing the log "slew +0.0000000sec".. and all NTP packet exchange is
>>> stopped after first pair exchange.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, that's the sort of problem you get from inappropriate use of that
>> driver.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If I remove this check [(!(peer->flags & FLAG_REFCLOCK] in peer_unfit
>>> function, then everything is fine.Time has been reset to the server value.
>>>
>>
>> It sounds to me that you have effectively removed the local clock
>> entirely.  The local clock needs to be treated as a refclock, so that time
>> served remains valid indefinitely.  On modern ntpd's, even without orphan
>> mode or local clock drivers, a non-leaf node will continue to serve time
>> long after its sources have gone away.  However the root distance will
>> increase until its clients decide it is too great.
>>
>>
>>> I am not sure why this flag check is required?
>>>
>>>
>>  ______________________________**_________________
>> questions mailing list
>> questions at lists.ntp.org
>> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/**questions<http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions>
>>
>
>
>



More information about the questions mailing list