[ntp:questions] local refclock and orphan mode...
stenn at ntp.org
Wed Nov 23 03:24:28 UTC 2011
> On 11/21/2011 01:51 AM, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> > I asked this on hackers@ and think a wider audience would be good.
> > In the old days, we had the local refclock.
> > Now we have orphan mode.
> > Can anybody think of a (good) use-case where one would want *both* the
> > local refclock *and* orphan mode configured for an instance of ntpd?
> I think you are confused about how things operate around here. The way
> this works is that *we* ask you the questions and then *you* give us
Mostly, that's true :) Mostly... In this case I'm trying to make sure
we don't implement a change that would catch folks by surprise.
> The first thing that comes to mind is environments with mixed ntpd
> versions. I realize that pre-4.2.2 was >5 years ago but sometimes change
> management policies read more like change resistance policies.
Sure, but in the old days there was no orphan mode. And there have been
some other changes to things that would require updating ntp.conf files.
So while you mention good points, I'm still not hearing anybody say "We
use local refclocks *and* orphan mode and the reason for that is X and
here's how we expect it to behave."
> What about the infamous interstellar/interplanetary ntp network?
If they are up for upgrading their ntpd instances, they can easily
upgrade the config files at the same time.
If such networks have what they think is a valid use case for
simultaneous use of both local refclocks and orphan mode, it would be
Good to hear what that case is.
More information about the questions