Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.iecc.com!.POSTED.news.iecc.com!not-for-mail From: "Miroslav Lichvar via questions Mailing List" Newsgroups: comp.protocols.time.ntp Subject: Re: [EXT] Re: Re: Re: Delay in Switching to Stratum 16 After Local Reference Loss on ntpd 4.2.8p18 Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 09:38:00 -0000 (UTC) Organization: Taughannock Networks, Trumansburg NY Message-ID: References: <90763509-b155-4fdb-8605-b861d8bd20b7@ntp.org> <637bfd260e184bb0844d2d746b6646c3@ukr.de> <1040f45$2qa5k$1@dont-email.me> Reply-To: "Miroslav Lichvar" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2025 09:38:00 -0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: gal.iecc.com; posting-host="news.iecc.com:2001:470:1f07:1126:0:676f:7373:6970"; logging-data="9847"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@iecc.com" Cc: "Dave Hart" , "questions@lists.ntp.org" , "=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= Perlinger" , "=?iso-8859-1?Q?J=FCrgen?= Perlinger" , "Windl, Ulrich" To: "Windl, Ulrich" Return-Path: Delivered-To: ntpquestions@iecc.com Errors-To: questions-owner@lists.ntp.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.1 (2024-03-26) on gal.iecc.com X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.1 required=4.4 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=4.0.1 Authentication-Results: iecc.com; spf=pass spf.mailfrom=questions-owner@lists.ntp.org spf.helo=mail0.chi1.ntfo.org smtp.remote-ip="204.93.207.17"; dkim=pass header.d=lists.ntp.org header.s=mail header.a=rsa-sha256 header.b="V+8Nt8pr"; dmarc=pass header.from=lists.ntp.org polrec.p=quarantine polrec.pct=100 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lists.ntp.org; s=mail; t=1751880861; bh=r/ws51OzIKyIIsmGxJNF/OGvtltTCvg9mxEsZxxUlDU=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Reply-To:Sender:List-Id:List-Help: List-Subscribe:List-Unsubscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; b=V+8Nt8prxIc9/BkW3/lF7XcMnqzyusDxkadaSgiEUbAoIcPfCB6eVSIXyEdCQeDAB Byj73Rob5qt9wj112LF6B2TV/mBY8+wNsepd0YYz5ucu8Vtw3qycCvenRWtYS38uJ0 pC4tW7mLUz9FQOh7EaBVjwASBGgYTBy8p9 X-MC-Unique: oNZxlvi4PxqMWSgMJ2mmpA-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: oNZxlvi4PxqMWSgMJ2mmpA_1751880829 In-Reply-To: <637bfd260e184bb0844d2d746b6646c3@ukr.de> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.0 on 10.30.177.40 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-MFC-PROC-ID: VZBUiezMCKNqlDVeVFQiWitat650XKSHdOLnDAxl758_1751880829 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Disposition: inline X-Loop: questions@lists.ntp.org List-Id: List-Help: , List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-Original-DMARC-Record: domain=redhat.com; v=DMARC1; p=quarantine; rua=mailto: 5f1992045035946@rep.dmarcanalyzer.com; ruf=mailto:5f1992045035946@for.dmarcanalyzer.com; fo=1; X-Original-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1751880834; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=r/ws51OzIKyIIsmGxJNF/OGvtltTCvg9mxEsZxxUlDU=; b=Pnj+ca/Njk9eLFcvndenmnwQ1mSuhzAbB+HzLbA1yTg51uIQQAqmUSkSC9Gilzj7REnWWx ECqCCxo3ZgSMhNKJBxJbZA+XRz7e6WZCklA/3UulSVDhzCiyE+8BlQ5Za6oruDPtLD5X/p M61GR+pJAOnm X-Original-From: Miroslav Lichvar X-DCC-iecc-Metrics: gal.iecc.com 1107; Body=1 Fuz1=1 Fuz2=1 Mail-to-news: iecc.com Xref: csiph.com comp.protocols.time.ntp:164197 On Fri, Jul 04, 2025 at 06:54:13AM +0000, Windl, Ulrich wrote: > Well, > > We could start a discussion what "UNSYNC" really means: > Does it mean the clock is free-running (not updated by the clock discipline), or does it mean the clock's estimated offset is "just terrible" (like 16 seconds)? I think in the context of the clock_select() function it means there is no source selected and the clock cannot be updated. The selection itself doesn't change the status of the clock. If it was previously considered to be synchronized, it will still be synchronized. > With the former definitions it's likely that an issue is discovered earlier by monitoring IMHO. The monitoring can check the reachability directly and discover the issue even sooner, no need to wait for the orphan timeout to activate after the source becomes unreachable. -- Miroslav Lichvar