[ntp:questions] Odd reachability with local clock on XP
Philip Prindeville
philipp_subx at redfish-solutions.com
Wed Oct 9 23:28:16 UTC 2013
Hi,
I'm running ntp-4.2.6p5 on Windows XP (SP3). I have, amongst other things, the following in my config:
server 127.127.1.0 noselect minpoll 4 maxpoll 6
fudge 127.127.1.0 stratum 10
and I'm running ntpd as a system service, not from the command line.
I've disabled the firewall, though for loopback it shouldn't make a difference.
When I start the service, I see:
D:\>ntpq -n -p
remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter
==============================================================================
72.14.188.52 129.7.1.66 2 u 1 16 1 57.919 2.743 2.143
149.20.68.17 66.220.9.122 2 u 1 16 1 28.563 -1.284 3.361
204.2.134.164 253.235.63.48 3 u 2 16 1 28.708 -2.060 3.291
173.244.211.10 204.42.158.152 2 u 1 16 1 16.708 0.080 3.606
*10.9.160.101 .GPS. 1 u 2 16 1 0.292 0.229 0.082
127.127.1.0 .LOCL. 10 l 7 16 1 0.000 0.000 0.000
but after a while this deteriorates and I see:
D:\>ntpq -n -p
remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter
==============================================================================
72.14.188.52 129.7.1.66 2 u 5 16 7 57.919 2.743 2.258
149.20.68.17 66.220.9.122 2 u 5 16 7 28.563 -1.284 3.117
204.2.134.164 253.235.63.48 3 u 4 16 7 26.888 -1.318 2.446
173.244.211.10 204.42.158.152 2 u 3 16 7 16.708 0.080 3.399
*10.9.160.101 .GPS. 1 u 2 16 7 0.251 0.213 0.050
127.127.1.0 .LOCL. 10 l 37 16 4 0.000 0.000 0.000
...
D:\>ntpq -n -p
remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter
==============================================================================
72.14.188.52 129.7.1.66 2 u 13 16 377 59.664 3.959 2.797
149.20.68.17 127.67.113.92 2 u 12 16 377 28.795 -1.356 3.391
204.2.134.164 129.250.35.250 3 u 12 16 377 26.953 -1.621 3.173
173.244.211.10 204.42.158.152 2 u 11 16 377 23.353 2.167 1.134
*10.9.160.101 .GPS. 1 u 10 16 377 0.289 -0.112 0.016
127.127.1.0 .LOCL. 10 l 77m 16 0 0.000 0.000 0.000
Not really sure why only the first packet gets through and no subsequent ones do.
Anyone else seen a similar issue?
Thanks,
-Philip
More information about the questions
mailing list