[ntp:questions] need option to ignore 'leap not in sync error'

mike cook michael.cook at sfr.fr
Thu Jan 16 08:23:26 UTC 2014

Le 16 janv. 2014 à 08:00, Sanal, Arjun (NSN - IN/Bangalore) a écrit :

> On 14/01/2014 14:58, Sanal, Arjun (NSN - IN/Bangalore) wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> I understand that whenever the server sets the Leap Indicator flag to 11 [not synchronized] the default behavior of ntp client is to reject the server time stamp.
>>> Is there any configuration option for ntpd by which I can make the ntp client to trust the server even in this case?
>>> --
>>> Arjun
>> Arjun,
>> I expect you already know this, but you could add more servers, so that 
>> rejecting the bad server does not affect timekeeping.  Be sure you are 
>> running version 4.2.7, and be sure to use the pool directive.
>> Is trusting an obviously wrong server really a good idea?
>> -- 
>> Cheers,
>> David
>> Web: http://www.satsignal.eu
> Hi David,
> Thanks for the reply. I agree that under normal circumstances trusting a wrong server is not good. I will explain my use case a bit.
> The setup is a blade server, which has one master blade server which runs the ntp server. All other blades sync the time from this master. The master itself gets it time from a higher ntp server. The problem is when the master says that it is not suitable for synchronization, the client blades shouldn't reject it. If they, do all the blades will end up with different time.

  The real solution is already given, but :
  In the case that the slave blades HAVE to be synchronized  to master blade for application reasons and there CAN ONLY be a maximum of one upstream ntp server for the master, there are a couple of possibilities which might work. 

  Firstly you could discipline the master blade clock using a method other than as an ntp client and then configure the master to use only its local clock (127.127.1.x) as ntp server.  Simplicity of implementation would depend on the OS/Hardware. 
  The other possibility depends on whether the blade architecture supports virtualisation. If so you could configure one virtual system to sync the system clock as an ntp client and the other to run an ntp server for the slaves using just its local clock as server. NTP is very light on resource usage, so there would be little or no perf impact on the master. 
> _______________________________________________
> questions mailing list
> questions at lists.ntp.org
> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions

More information about the questions mailing list