[ntp:questions] Observation with ntp4.2.8 at p4-request inputs
Brian.Inglis at SystematicSw.ab.ca
Thu Dec 10 05:58:53 UTC 2015
You need a *majority* clique to discipline time.
For that to be the case truechimers must be > falsetickers.
To handle n falsetickers (sources may be offline for some reason), you need at least 2n+1 independent sources.
If sources are not totally independent (e.g. at same site) you risk more than one going down at the same time, increasing the number n (above) of simultaneous falsetickers your configuration must be able to handle.
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
On 2015-12-09 22:20, Tiwari, Dilip (Nokia - IN/Bangalore) wrote:
> Hi shyam,
> First of all, 2 server configuration should be avoided because in that case there are chances that your server will be marked falseticker(X).
> Behaviour you observed is possible in such cases.
> Best Regards,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: questions [mailto:questions-bounces+dilip.tiwari=nokia.com at lists.ntp.org] On Behalf Of EXT Sowmya Manapragada
> Sent: Thursday, December 10, 2015 8:56 AM
> To: questions at lists.ntp.org
> Subject: [ntp:questions] Observation with ntp4.2.8 at p4-request inputs
> Hello All,
> Just wanted to check if what I am observing with4.2.8p4 is as expected or I
> missed out something because I don't see this with older 4.2.8p2/p3
> :I have a client having 2 NTP servers (both servers in my LAN ), client
> makes one as a peer ( to which it is currently synced) and other as a
> candidate; the peer (server) goes down, my client at least waited 7 to 8
> min to reject this peer server and choose the available one... Checked in
> Mein berg monitor tool also and rv0 command ... The status word just don't
> show that client rejected server until 7 to 8 minutes... Wire shark
> correctly shows no packets exchanged between my clint and peer ( right from
> moment when server which is down)..my client ntp.conf is standard with an
More information about the questions