Doug Barton skrev:
Frank Behrens wrote:
Edwin Groothuis wrote on 5 Jun 2009 22:44:
After pondering at conf/58595, I came with this text.
The ntpd is not enabled by default, so the fact that the servers
are commented out should not be an issue.
...
+# server pool.ntp.org
+# server pool.ntp.org
>> i believe that you may relying on a behavior of a dns resolver which
>> is not specified
> While it might not be specified, it is being observed and therefore
> an issue when we want to restrict traffic specified by hostname.
i do not disagree.
randy
___
On Sat, Jun 06, 2009 at 11:01:53AM +0900, Randy Bush wrote:
> > I have "server 0.pool.ntp.org" in my NTP configuration, which still
> > only gives me one NTP server in its internals ("dig 0.pool.ntp.org"
> > gives me five answers, "ntpq -p" gives me one server). Having the
> > "server 0.pool.ntp.or
> I have "server 0.pool.ntp.org" in my NTP configuration, which still
> only gives me one NTP server in its internals ("dig 0.pool.ntp.org"
> gives me five answers, "ntpq -p" gives me one server). Having the
> "server 0.pool.ntp.org" in my configuration twice will give it two
> NTP servers in its i
Hello Frank,
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 04:24:18PM +0200, Frank Behrens wrote:
> Edwin Groothuis wrote on 5 Jun 2009 22:44:
> > After pondering at conf/58595, I came with this text.
> >
> > The ntpd is not enabled by default, so the fact that the servers
> > are commented out should not be an issue
First thanks to everybody who replied, I've read it all.
The ntpd.conf in the etc/Makefile was a typo of me.
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 08:52:01AM -0500, Sean C. Farley wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Edwin Groothuis wrote:
>
> >After pondering at conf/58595, I came with this text.
> >
> >The ntpd is
Frank Behrens wrote:
> Edwin Groothuis wrote on 5 Jun 2009 22:44:
>> After pondering at conf/58595, I came with this text.
>>
>> The ntpd is not enabled by default, so the fact that the servers
>> are commented out should not be an issue.
>> ...
>> +# server pool.ntp.org
>> +# server pool.ntp.org
Bruce Evans wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Sean C. Farley wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Edwin Groothuis wrote:
Index: etc/ntp.conf
===
--- etc/ntp.conf(revision 0)
+++ etc/ntp.conf(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+#
+# $FreeBSD$
+#
On Fri, Jun 05, 2009 at 04:57:52PM +0300, Mikolaj Golub wrote:
> It works for me. With the patch I has not managed to crash the system using my
> test. Some notes:
>
> - only ng_ipfw/ng_car subsystem has been tested (not dummynet).
> - my -current box is under qemu (I don't have real server runni
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Sean C. Farley wrote:
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Edwin Groothuis wrote:
Index: etc/ntp.conf
===
--- etc/ntp.conf(revision 0)
+++ etc/ntp.conf(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,28 @@
+#
+# $FreeBSD$
+#
+# Default
Edwin Groothuis wrote on 5 Jun 2009 22:44:
> After pondering at conf/58595, I came with this text.
>
> The ntpd is not enabled by default, so the fact that the servers
> are commented out should not be an issue.
>...
> +# server pool.ntp.org
> +# server pool.ntp.org
> +# server pool.ntp.org
Isn'
On Fri, Jun 5, 2009 at 4:52 PM, Sean C. Farley wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Edwin Groothuis wrote:
>
> After pondering at conf/58595, I came with this text.
>>
>> The ntpd is not enabled by default, so the fact that the servers
>> are commented out should not be an issue.
>>
>> Any objections ag
According to Sean C. Farley:
> I would also add restrict lines to it since ntp defaults to being open
> to all packets.
Now that I think of it, please add also the following lines, which helps when
losing the sync on the remote servers.
server 127.127.1.0
fudge 127.127.1.0 stratum 10
That add
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 00:47:20 +0400 Oleg Bulyzhin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 03, 2009 at 09:03:11PM +0400, Oleg Bulyzhin wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 01, 2009 at 11:12:45AM +0300, Mikolaj Golub wrote:
>>
>> > It looks the problem has not drawn much attention :-).
>>
>> I was on vacation so did not reply in tim
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Edwin Groothuis wrote:
After pondering at conf/58595, I came with this text.
The ntpd is not enabled by default, so the fact that the servers
are commented out should not be an issue.
Any objections against adding it to the tree?
I like it.
I would also add restrict line
According to Edwin Groothuis:
> After pondering at conf/58595, I came with this text.
>
> The ntpd is not enabled by default, so the fact that the servers
> are commented out should not be an issue.
>
> Any objections against adding it to the tree?
None from me. Go for it thanks.
--
Ollivier
After pondering at conf/58595, I came with this text.
The ntpd is not enabled by default, so the fact that the servers
are commented out should not be an issue.
Any objections against adding it to the tree?
Index: etc/ntp.conf
===
I'm getting a panic in sbflush where mbcnt is 0 and sb_mb is not empty. Any
clues as to what might cause this? It happening during a load test.
Barney
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-n
18 matches
Mail list logo