[ntp:questions] Re: Correcting my time servers clock drift on Alpha ES40s / Tru64
mayer at ntp.isc.org
Tue Oct 25 03:13:37 UTC 2005
brett.sander at tenix.com wrote:
> Tom Smith wrote:
>>In any case, the local clock should be declared as a "server" and not a "peer".
> Thanks for all the replies so far all. I spoke to my senior engineer
> and asked why we had the current configuration. He said that he wanted
> the servers to stay in sync and acknowledged that the time would float
> (his main point was to keep them in sync). Our network/server/system
> configuration is built to provide redundancy as much as possible.
> According to the man pages peer has the following description:
> "This command specifies that the local server is to operate in
> "symmetric active" mode with the remote server host_address. In this
> mode,the local server can be synchronized to the remote server and, in
> addition, the remote server can be synchronized by the local server.
> This is useful in a network of servers where, depending on various
> failure scenarios, either the local or remote server host may be the
> better source of time"
> To my understanding, with our current setup, when terrance starts xntpd
> it checks its peers for their times. Then it changes its time to match
> it (please correct me if I am wrong). Does it check both peers?(in our
> current setup with both phillip and 127.127.1.1 as peers)
> In the setup below, when terrance starts xntpd, it checks the server
> (its local clock) and then changes its time to meet it (I assume).
> Does it then check phillip's time? What does it do if phillips time is
> peer phillip
> server 127.127.1.1
> and phillip:
> peer terrance
> peer 127.127.1.1
You cannot peer your local clock. That makes no sense.
If your systems are going to provide redundancy you should start by
setting up your ntp systems to point to 4 or 5 stratum 1 or 2 servers.
You gain nothing by not having them point to other peers who also have
no external sources to refer to.
More information about the questions