| Re: [chrony-users] NTP v4 header |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More chrony.tuxfamily.org/chrony-users Archives
]
On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 07:25:20PM +0200, Harald Krammer wrote:
> I have full understanding of a rejection of my patches, because
> they are really strange. Or exists cleaner solutions for my hacks?
A workaround for the stratum problem could be running two chronyd
instances, one as a client and one as a server with "local stratum".
They'd have to be configured to use different port, cmdport and
pidfile. The server should be started before the client as it will
reset clock frequency to 0 or the drift value. (starting without
driftfile shouldn't reset the frequency though, I'll see if it can be
fixed easily)
But it you need to patch the sources for the other hacks, adding
another patch will be probably easier than running two daemons.
> It is the second condition.
> (UTI_CompareTimevals(&remote_reference_tv, &remote_transmit_tv) is 1
> ref_time=00000000.00000000 [Thu 02/07/36 06:28:16.000000]
> When I force test6 to true, then the synchronization seems to work. I
> made an extra option to support that behavior and will put it into my
> git-tree.
The problem is that ref_time is 0, which after converting to Unix time
is 25 years in future and the check fails. If the timestamps were
compared in NTP timestamps, the NTP_MAXAGE check would fail instead.
RFC 5905 doesn't have the NTP_MAXAGE check. Interestingly, in ntpd it
seems there is no reftime checking at all, I'll have to ask on the ntp
list which is correct.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
---
To unsubscribe email chrony-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with "unsubscribe" in the subject.
For help email chrony-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with "help" in the subject.
Trouble? Email listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.