[ntp:questions] ntpd wedged again

Michael Deutschmann michael at talamasca.ocis.net
Thu Feb 16 05:36:47 UTC 2012


On Mon, 13 Feb 2012, A C wrote:
> I'm not sure it's a good idea either but I would really like to
> understand why a refclock clamps the polling interval at such a low
> value when nearly every bit of documentation says we should be kind to
> NTP servers and make sure the polling period is allowed to reach 1024.

I think the explanation was that, if your server is polling its
reference every 64s and the internet every 1024s, then should the
reference go *crazy*, it has 15 polls to wreck the system time before
the daemon notices that all three internet backups reject the decision
already taken to speed up/slow down the system clock drastically.

In contrast, with everything at 64s, the falseticking reference's
signals are taken together with the internet opinion, and rejected
before they do damage.  Things smoothly degrade into the internet-only
situation.

Although I see two problems with this logic.  For one, I don't see how
you can prevent an excursion when faced with a falseticking PPS.  For
another, this assumes it is likely that a reference clock might actually
go crazy, as opposed to merely failing cleanly in such a way that the
NTP code is fed "Sorry, I'm not sure anymore" rather than lies.

---- Michael Deutschmann <michael at talamasca.ocis.net>



More information about the questions mailing list