[ntp:questions] Pool server gone wild

William Unruh unruh at invalid.ca
Sat Feb 21 18:44:54 UTC 2015


On 2015-02-21, Rob <nomail at example.com> wrote:
> Roger <invalid at invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 21 Feb 2015 10:52:40 GMT, Rob <nomail at example.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Roger <invalid at invalid.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 21 Feb 2015 07:54:50 GMT, Rob <nomail at example.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>It looks like you have created your own problem.
>>>>
>>>> What problem are you talking about?
>>>
>>>Your problem to get enough good servers.
>>
>> When did I say that?
>>
>> I observed ntpd continuing to poll a server which was off by
>> 100s of milliseconds. Are you saying that ntpd didn't drop the
>> server because of not enough good servers? A quick eyeball of
>> the relevant peerstats shows that ntpd was using at least six
>> good servers plus the one that went wild. Methinks you've come
>> to an opinion based on too little information.
>

Why should it not continue to poll it? It should be pruned as a bad
ticker by the ntpd algorihm, and thus not affect the clock discipline.
But that offset might be just a temporary abberation and that source
come back on sync in a few hours or days. Why throw it away. And as has
been mentioned, apparently the pool servers are monitored and if a
source is persistantly bad, it will be removed from the pool.
Ie, what is the harm in continuing to poll it?



More information about the questions mailing list