[ntp:questions] Re: win32 undisciplined local clock sync time
maarten at kittensandcats.net
Sat Nov 19 11:43:04 UTC 2005
"Skunk Worx" <skunkworx at verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Ernff.39$9P5.18 at trnddc09...
> Steve Kostecke wrote:
>> The undisciplined local clock (127.127.1.x) is not appropriate for
>> this purpose.
> Yes it is. This is an isolated test environment, and I am following
> the NTP documents, adhering to the warnings, and insuring I affect
> no one else.
(Some) people here have a way of getting religious about what NTP
should be made to do and what is (horrified face) "inappropriate".
NTP can do several things for you. Some of these things _are_ lost
without proper reference clocks. Like the length of a second; it will
vary with the temperature around a local clock oscillator. There are
people who genuinely don't care about this, and other people who
genuinely don't grasp that.
>> Then why are you telling your undisciplined local clock to use
>> "NIST" as its ref-id?
> This was taken directly from the NTP documents for using an
> undisciplined local time source (for testing, etc.) :
Go back and read it better. You may be following the docs as stated
above, but you did this without understanding them.
That page explains how you could synchronise a local clock to NIST
using means outside NTP. _Then_ it would be reasonable to fudge its
refid to NIST. Not if you simply let it run free.
More information about the questions