On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 at 01:53 -, David Malone wrote:
> > Is 3.freebsd.pool.ntp.org intentionally commented? It does
> > resolve. Reminder: if you do uncomment it, remember to change the
> > "three servers" to four.
>
> I've no problem commenting in all 4 if people think that's a better
> conf
> > I'll change the commented version, as it shouldn't do any harm.
> > As I said, I usually use 14, which is probably almost too low.
> I don't see any real added value having 14 instead of 10. At these levels it
> can be only a "faked" one.
Grand - let's leave it at 10 then.
David.
___
According to David Malone:
> I'll change the commented version, as it shouldn't do any harm.
> As I said, I usually use 14, which is probably almost too low.
I don't see any real added value having 14 instead of 10. At these levels it
can be only a "faked" one.
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: Th
> I'd tend to suggest stratum 13 so that the inattentive admin
> doesn't spread his potentially dodgy clock info too far when
> he tries uncommenting the above otherwise I (rather
> subjectively) agree with this change :)
I'll change the commented version, as it shouldn't do any harm.
As I sa
> Is 3.freebsd.pool.ntp.org intentionally commented? It does resolve.
> Reminder: if you do uncomment it, remember to change the "three
> servers" to four.
The pool set up 4 groups (0, 1, 2, 3) for us, but since we only had
three in the original file (and three is a commonly recommended
number
Hi David,
On Thu, Jul 09, 2009 at 10:20:29AM +0100, David Malone wrote:
> The NTP pool guys have set up our vendor domain. I'd like to commit
> the patch below to ntp.conf. It does the following:
>
> 1) Uses our vendor domain at the pool.
> 2) Points people at the pool website and enc
On Thu, 9 Jul 2009, David Malone wrote:
The NTP pool guys have set up our vendor domain. I'd like to commit
the patch below to ntp.conf. It does the following:
1) Uses our vendor domain at the pool.
2) Points people at the pool website and encourages
people to provide
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 10:20:29 +0100, David Malone wrote:
> The NTP pool guys have set up our vendor domain. I'd like to commit
> the patch below to ntp.conf. It does the following:
>
> 1) Uses our vendor domain at the pool.
> 2) Points people at the pool website and encourages
>
According to David Malone:
> The NTP pool guys have set up our vendor domain. I'd like to commit
> the patch below to ntp.conf. It does the following:
Approval from me, thanks.
--
Ollivier ROBERT -=- FreeBSD: The Power to Serve! -=- robe...@keltia.freenix.fr
In memoriam to Ondine : http://ondine
The NTP pool guys have set up our vendor domain. I'd like to commit
the patch below to ntp.conf. It does the following:
1) Uses our vendor domain at the pool.
2) Points people at the pool website and encourages
people to provide a server in the pool (as a
cour
Louis Mamakos wrote:
> > Shouldn't ntpd have figured out by now that the clock is gone (I
> > unplugged it yesterday) and have switched into orphan mode?
>
> It seems like orphan mode is something that you'd run on an ensemble
> of local machines to ensure that they continue to be synchronized w
On Mon, Jul 06, 2009 at 02:30:19PM +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
> David Malone wrote:
>
> > (Also, we probably really want people to run in orphan mode rather
> > than local clock mode, but we can wait a little longer until orphan
> > mode is more commonly deployed, IMHO...)
>
> I didn't k
David Malone wrote:
> (Also, we probably really want people to run in orphan mode rather
> than local clock mode, but we can wait a little longer until orphan
> mode is more commonly deployed, IMHO...)
I didn't know about orphan mode, so I had to try it right away.
$ cat /etc/ntp.conf
server 12
> This is handled by having different local clocks in different strata.
> I only use 2 such strata -- 1 for server and another for all clients.
> But this is not so easy to set up as a default.
Indeed - I use 14 for the server, in the hope that it would limit
how far the unsynced time would get in
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, David Malone wrote:
The local clock should only be configured on a single server in a
NTP domain that might be disconnected from the rest of the tree.
Since the default config is a client config, it doesn't make sense
to have the local clock configured. Even if it was a serve
On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 09:55:44AM +0100, David Malone wrote:
> > > We are supposed to contact the people running the pool and ask for
> > > a freebsd.pool.ntp.org subdomain.
>
> > That's a good idea.
>
> OK - should I contact the pool guys and ask for freebsd.pool.org?
>
> > > Second, we should
> > We are supposed to contact the people running the pool and ask for
> > a freebsd.pool.ntp.org subdomain.
> That's a good idea.
OK - should I contact the pool guys and ask for freebsd.pool.org?
> > Second, we shouldn't have the local clock configured by default.
> Why?
When Redhat did this,
According to David Malone:
> We are supposed to contact the people running the pool and ask for
> a freebsd.pool.ntp.org subdomain.
That's a good idea.
> Second, we shouldn't have the local clock configured by default.
Why?
> The local clock should only be configured on a single server in a
>
There are several problems with the default ntp.conf that we've
committed to -current. First, we have not followed the vendor
recommendations for the pool servers at:
http://www.pool.ntp.org/vendors.html
We are supposed to contact the people running the pool and ask for
a freebsd.pool.ntp
Hello Richard,
On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 09:22:31PM +0100, Richard Tector wrote:
> The fact that everyone has different ideas and suggestions with regards
> to the contents of this file, and also that it's generally better to use
> time servers from your local area (http://www.pool.ntp.org/en/use.
The fact that everyone has different ideas and suggestions with regards
to the contents of this file, and also that it's generally better to use
time servers from your local area (http://www.pool.ntp.org/en/use.html)
rather than the global pool, indicates to me that having a default
configurati
According to Bruce Evans:
> /var/db/ntpd.drift is not documented anywhere in $(find /usr/share/man)
> of course.
Keep in mind that most of our manpages are reverse-engineered from the HTML
files Dave Mills only wanted to support...
I'll try to update to the latest version and see if the now bship
Please note that it just has been committed.
Everybody thanks a lot for your input!
Edwin
--
Edwin Groothuis Website: http://www.mavetju.org/
ed...@mavetju.org Weblog: http://www.mavetju.org/weblog/
___
freebsd-net@freebsd.org mailing l
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Doug Barton wrote:
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
+
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009, Miroslav Lachman wrote:
Bruce Evans wrote:
Similarly, the drift file is named ntp.drift except in poorly configured
FreeBSD installations. ntp sources in contrib have 80 lines matching
Also note that /var/db/ntpd.drift is specified as flags in defaults/rc.conf
(I don't k
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, 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, 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
===
40 matches
Mail list logo
