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

Maarten Wiltink maarten at kittensandcats.net
Mon Jan 20 17:58:27 UTC 2014

"Harlan Stenn" <stenn at ntp.org> wrote in message
news:E1W5Djb-000ABl-Nx at stenn.ntp.org...
> I'm thinking we want to be pretty careful about when we'd recommend a
> local refclock, as it seems much better to recommend orphan mode as
> that seems to be a much better solution for a wider number of folks.
> What do others think?

That orphan mode is inherently symmetrical, and a single master with a
local clock backup is inherently asymmetrical. That the configuration
of the larger group is simpler in the latter case. That I've been
clinging to those as a barely honourable defence of the local clock for
this thread's original scenario of a gateway server to a herd of sheep.

The asymmetry may also be served by not including the gateway as an
orphan but only as server to them all.

I don't usually worry very much about the remaining single point of
failure, or the possibility of that point being unsuitable as a
holdover server. After running successfully for awhile, _all_ nodes
should be stabilised fairly well.

Maarten Wiltink

More information about the questions mailing list