[ntp:questions] NTPD silently not tracking

Magnus Danielson magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org
Tue Sep 3 00:37:47 UTC 2013

On 09/02/2013 03:49 AM, unruh wrote:
> On 2013-09-01, Magnus Danielson <magnus at rubidium.dyndns.org> wrote:
>> server ntp1.kth.se iburst maxpoll 7
>> server ntp2.kth.se iburst maxpoll 7
>> server ntp3.kth.se iburst maxpoll 7
>> server ntp1.sp.se iburst maxpoll 7
>> server ntp2.sp.se iburst maxpoll 7
>> # Access control configuration; see
>> /usr/share/doc/ntp-doc/html/accopt.html for
>> # details.  The web page
>> <http://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Support/AccessRestrictions>
> I do hope that was really all on the same line, or there was a # at the
> start of that second line.
> Otherwise ntpd will be confused. 
No worries. That mishap came in the copy-and-past between less
/etc/ntp.conf in one window any my email client.
>> This is the default Debian config file which have been changed to point
>> out 5 servers, which I was referring to in my follow-up message:
>> 8<---
>> It has 2 stratum 1 and 3 stratum 2 unicast servers configured. NTP wise
>> this machine is a client with 5 configured servers. The problem was that
>> it was way off time with no apparent indication, which is wrong.
> Agreed. Noone is arguing it is right. The question is why. You do not
> seem to be using the local refclock, so that is one explanation gone. 
Seemed strange to see those comments, as I had already said otherwise.
> None of those servers happens to be the machine itself do they? Of
> progeny of that server?
No. This is a server, but not of NTP. NTP-wise it is a client.

The three stratum 2 servers are local, and the stratum 1 servers are
national well known servers.
> And looking at those log files around the time things go bad might be
> suggestive. 
> Exactly which version of ntpd, and you are sure that someone has not
> made "improvements" to it?
If you read my initial message, you would have seen this:

ii  ntp            1:4.2.6.p5+d i386         Network Time Protocol daemon and 

which is the result of running "dpkg -l ntp" on that Debian system. We don't have time to "improve" things with local patches. We might be accused of misconfiguration.

I made a report here, in hope you could make more sense of the behavior than the normal Debian packet maintainer.


More information about the questions mailing list