[ntp:questions] Re: ntp server 'rejected'

Ronan Flood ronan at noc.ulcc.ac.uk
Mon Apr 17 20:24:48 UTC 2006


david.sanderson at bem.fki-et.com wrote:

> The servers diagnostics indicate it is happy, and I can sync a linux
> (Fedora core 4) box to it ok.

Interesting, perhaps a client version difference: what does "ntpq -crv"
show on your QNX box and your Linux box?

I gather your stratum-1 has two interfaces; have you tried the QNX
client with only one of the server's addresses configured?

> Ronan Flood wrote:
> >Hmm, the rootdispersion looks suspect; but then I'd expect that to
> >light one of the flash bits.

Forget the flash bit, that'd only light if rootdispersion was > 16000
(16 seconds) I think, on further investigation.

> Ok, I set the host to the clockbox:
> 
> ntpq> host 192.168.0.230
> current host set to 192.168.0.230, I have a xover connection to one
> port on this server, so 192. is not as bad as it seems.
> 
> ntpq> cl
> status=0101 clk_noreply, last_clk_noreply,
> ntpq> device="SHM/Shared memory interface", timecode=, poll=17039,
> noreply=3671, badformat=0, baddata=0, fudgetime1=0.000, stratum=0,
> refid=GPS, flags=0
> 
> there seem to be a lot of no replys?

Yes, possible problem there; but that shouldn't affect the client
syncing to it.

> ntpq> rv
> status=09f4 leap_none, sync_telephone, 15 events, event_peer/strat_chg,
> ntpq> version="ntpd 4.2.0 at 1.1161-r Mon Oct 25 15:22:31 BST 2004 (14)",
> processor="i686", system="Linux/2.4.20-8", leap=00, stratum=1,
> precision=-20, rootdelay=0.000, rootdispersion=996.710, peer=21093,
> refid=GPS, reftime=c7e9cb1a.66643cc0  Fri, Apr 14 2006  7:17:46.399,
> poll=4, clock=c7e9cb25.2c766c6d  Fri, Apr 14 2006  7:17:57.173,
> state=4,
> offset=-0.001, frequency=-4.862, jitter=0.006, stability=0.000
> 
> I can see nothing suspicious here, apart from sync_telephone possibly?

That, and there's the rootdispersion again.  What does "ntpq -crv 21093"
show?  (adjust for current peer assoc id).

What is your GPS clock?  Is this a Galleon NTP server, by any chance?
I see similar behaviour with what I have been told is one of those,
from an ntp-4.0.99k client.

-- 
                      Ronan Flood <R.Flood at noc.ulcc.ac.uk>
                        working for but not speaking for
             Network Services, University of London Computer Centre
     (which means: don't bother ULCC if I've said something you don't like)




More information about the questions mailing list