[ntp:questions] Re: What's different about these (S)NTP servers?

Danny Mayer mayer at gis.net
Wed Oct 29 23:00:04 UTC 2003


gabriel rosenkoetter <grosen at cc3.com> wrote in message news:<mailman.45.1067443703.1751.questions at ntp.org>...
> mix:~# ntpdate -d -q forest
> 29 Oct 11:02:35 ntpdate[2160]: ntpdate 4.1.0b-rc1 at 1.756 Thu Feb 13 12:09:56 EST 2003 (1)
> 
> 29 Oct 11:02:35 ntpdate[2160]: no server suitable for synchronization found
> mix:~# ntpdate -d -q bkupserv
> 29 Oct 10:53:41 ntpdate[2143]: ntpdate 4.1.0b-rc1 at 1.756 Thu Feb 13 12:09:56 > server A.B.C.160, port 123
> stratum 2, precision -7, leap 00, trust 000
> refid [A.B.C.70], delay 0.03351, dispersion 0.00011
> transmitted 4, in filter 4
> reference time:    c34a19e1.019d89e9  Wed, Oct 29 2003  5:50:09.006
> originate timestamp: c34a6104.9916872a  Wed, Oct 29 2003
> 10:53:40.598
> transmit timestamp:  c34a6105.1e612839  Wed, Oct 29 2003
> 10:53:41.118
> filter delay:  0.03357  0.03351  0.03351  0.03351 
>          0.00000  0.00000  0.00000  0.00000 
> filter offset: -0.52036 -0.52051 -0.52061 -0.52070
>          0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
> delay 0.03351, dispersion 0.00011
> offset -0.520515
> 
> 29 Oct 10:53:41 ntpdate[2143]: step time server A.B.C.160 offset -0.520515 sec
> 
> That's the default ntpdate from Red Hat Linux Advanced Server 2.1AS,
> patched reasonably up to date.
> 
> I get the same response out of the ntpdate that I built as part of a
> NetBSD 1.6K snapshot (ntpdate 4.0.99i).
> 
> I get the same response out of ntpdate 3-5.93e on a Solaris 7
> system.
> 
> Both servers (forest and bkupserv) are running Win2k, patched to
> basically the same level. Both are using the w32time service.
> 
> I accept the fact that I'll be getting my time from an SNTP server,
> not from a true NTP server. I don't really care about that.
> 
> I want to know why one SNTP server is valid, and the other is not.
> 
> I can't see anything different in the ntpdate -q output... am I
> missing something?
> 
> Is there a way to get a greater level of debugging so that I could
> see what's determining unsuitability in this case?

I don't know what this A.B.C.160 stuff is. It has no meaning. You
should A) upgrade to 4.2.0 and try again and B) don't use w32time on
a PC since you can't guarantee what to do. Install ntp 4.2.0 on the
W2K machines and turn off the w32time service. Things should work
between like applications. I don't know what kinds of protocols that
w32time supports.

Danny



More information about the questions mailing list