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

bhargav p bhargav.1226 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 24 17:52:14 UTC 2012


My machine is the server for other nodes[blades] in the cluster.So it is
not a leaf machine.

The main issue is that, if local clock is there there is an issue with the
flag check in the peer_unfit ()..If the flag check is not there then even
if local configuration is there everything is fine.

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 8:38 PM, unruh <unruh at invalid.ca> wrote:

> 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>
>  >>
> >
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> questions mailing list
> questions at lists.ntp.org
> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
>


More information about the questions mailing list