Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2) - NTP

This is a discussion on Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2) - NTP ; mlonisto@gmail.com (Marcos Onisto) wrote: > That's it! OK. > In front of the Spectracom hardware there are information like below: > DIGITAL CLOCK DISTRIBUTOR > LOCAL PRIMARY REFERENCE > DCD - LPR/C > GTI/C - GPS That sounds like a ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 36 of 36

Thread: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

  1. Re: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

    mlonisto@gmail.com (Marcos Onisto) wrote:

    > That's it!


    OK.

    > In front of the Spectracom hardware there are information like below:
    > DIGITAL CLOCK DISTRIBUTOR
    > LOCAL PRIMARY REFERENCE
    > DCD - LPR/C
    > GTI/C - GPS


    That sounds like a telco SSU (eg Symmetricom) rather than a Spectracom
    clock, although I know nothing about either as it happens!

    I suppose since refclock_wwvb is happy it doesn't matter.

    What does "ntpq -ccl" show on your working server?

    > I have two servers Sun Netra T1 with Solaris 9 Operation System like


    They have an RJ45 serial port, so you're converting from DB25 to that?

    I asked you before what "ls -l /dev/wwvb2" shows ...

    > below, but only one is connected now because I had a problem before. I
    > dont know It because the two servers disputing the same channel or if
    > there is a problem.


    I guess it could be an electrical problem rather than a software
    problem; I don't know if two servers trying to poll the clock would
    interfere with each other. However I'd say a clock distributor
    would be sending the time at regular intervals without polling.

    --
    Ronan Flood

  2. Re: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

    mlonisto@gmail.com (Marcos Onisto) wrote:

    > Follow below the output of the command:
    > $ /sbin/ifconfig -a6
    > $


    Yeah I have the same on a Solaris 8 system, but ntpdate 4.2.0 still
    tries ::1 for localhost -- it's because of /etc/inet/ipnodes. Remove
    the ::1 from that and it works, but I don't know what other effects
    that might have ...

    Best to use "ntpdate -q 127.0.0.1" or "ntpdate -q4 localhost".
    Not that you need to use either of course.

    By the way, looking back at your ntp.conf, you had

    restrict 200.160.0.0 nomodify
    restrict 200.160.1.0 nomodify

    If those are meant to be /24 network blocks, which I guess they
    are, I think you need to tell ntpd that:

    restrict 200.160.0.0 mask 255.255.255.0 nomodify
    restrict 200.160.1.0 mask 255.255.255.0 nomodify

    --
    Ronan Flood

  3. Re: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

    On 2 Mar 2007 15:19:04 GMT, Ronan Flood wrote:
    > mlonisto@gmail.com (Marcos Onisto) wrote:
    >
    > > That's it!

    >
    > OK.
    >
    > > In front of the Spectracom hardware there are information like below:
    > > DIGITAL CLOCK DISTRIBUTOR
    > > LOCAL PRIMARY REFERENCE
    > > DCD - LPR/C
    > > GTI/C - GPS

    >
    > That sounds like a telco SSU (eg Symmetricom) rather than a Spectracom
    > clock, although I know nothing about either as it happens!
    >
    > I suppose since refclock_wwvb is happy it doesn't matter.
    >
    > What does "ntpq -ccl" show on your working server?


    $ ntpq -ccl
    status=0303 clk_fault, last_clk_fault
    device="Spectracom WWVB/GPS Receivers",
    timecode=" 07 061 16:50:46.001 S", poll=5348, noreply=0, badformat=0,
    baddata=90, fudgetime1=0.000, stratum=0, refid=WWVB, flags=0

    >
    > > I have two servers Sun Netra T1 with Solaris 9 Operation System like

    >
    > They have an RJ45 serial port, so you're converting from DB25 to that?


    Yes, I'm using one Cisco cable for db25 to db9.

    >
    > I asked you before what "ls -l /dev/wwvb2" shows ...


    $ ls -l /dev/wwv*
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 49 Jul 4 2006 /dev/wwvb1 ->
    .../devices/pci@1f,0/pci@1,1/ebus@1/su@14,3803f8:a
    lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 49 Jul 3 2006 /dev/wwvb2 ->
    .../devices/pci@1f,0/pci@1,1/ebus@1/su@14,3602f8:b

    >
    > > below, but only one is connected now because I had a problem before. I
    > > dont know It because the two servers disputing the same channel or if
    > > there is a problem.

    >
    > I guess it could be an electrical problem rather than a software
    > problem; I don't know if two servers trying to poll the clock would
    > interfere with each other. However I'd say a clock distributor
    > would be sending the time at regular intervals without polling.


    I'm using only one server while I dont have sure about this problem, I
    can left the other server like spare.

    >
    > --
    > Ronan Flood
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > questions mailing list
    > questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
    > https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
    >


    Tks a lot for your help.

    Marcos
    _______________________________________________
    questions mailing list
    questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
    https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions


  4. Re: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

    Ronan Flood wrote:
    > I think ntpdate 4.2.0 just uses the first returned address, and now
    > that Marcos has said he's running Solaris I've remembered that
    > ntpdate 4.2.0 on Solaris doesn't work with IPv6 anyway because
    > Solaris changes the IPv6 socket structure in a way which ntpdate
    > doesn't expect


    > http://lists.ntp.isc.org/pipermail/q...ch/004535.html


    I wonder if that is still the case in "5.10" Anyway, does ntpdate set
    the AI_ADDRCONFIG flag? If not, doing so should prevent it from
    getting IPv6 answers when there is no IPv6 address configured on the
    system running ntpdate.

    Whether ntpdate should be enhanced to walk the list I guess would be
    an open question.

    rick jones
    --
    The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak.
    The real question is "Can it be patched?"
    these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
    feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

  5. Re: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

    Marcos Onisto wrote:
    > I'm not using using IPv6 here!
    >


    That's not relevant here. If there are IPv6 addresses associated with
    the name being looked up then getaddrinfo() will retrieve it and it will
    be first on the list and if getaddrinfo() is not being told to only
    retrieve IPv4 addresses you are likely to be in a situation where it
    will get an IPv6 address and it will try and use it. That's what Rick
    was trying to point out.

    Danny
    > On 2 Mar 2007 12:03:11 GMT, Ronan Flood wrote:
    >> Rick Jones wrote:
    >>
    >>> It could be the case that getaddrinfo() (I trust ntpdate is calling
    >>> getaddrinfo?) is returning more than one address and the IPv6 one
    >>> happens to be first in the list - does ntpdate walk the list or just
    >>> try the first one?

    >> I think ntpdate 4.2.0 just uses the first returned address, and
    >> now that Marcos has said he's running Solaris I've remembered
    >> that ntpdate 4.2.0 on Solaris doesn't work with IPv6 anyway
    >> because Solaris changes the IPv6 socket structure in a way which
    >> ntpdate doesn't expect
    >>
    >> http://lists.ntp.isc.org/pipermail/q...ch/004535.html
    >>
    >> --
    >> Ronan Flood
    >>
    >> _______________________________________________
    >> questions mailing list
    >> questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
    >> https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
    >>

    > _______________________________________________
    > questions mailing list
    > questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
    > https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
    >


    _______________________________________________
    questions mailing list
    questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
    https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions


  6. Re: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

    On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 18:54:12 GMT, Rick Jones wrote:

    > > I think ntpdate 4.2.0 just uses the first returned address, and now
    > > that Marcos has said he's running Solaris I've remembered that
    > > ntpdate 4.2.0 on Solaris doesn't work with IPv6 anyway because
    > > Solaris changes the IPv6 socket structure in a way which ntpdate
    > > doesn't expect

    >
    > > http://lists.ntp.isc.org/pipermail/q...ch/004535.html

    >
    > I wonder if that is still the case in "5.10" Anyway, does ntpdate set


    It is.

    > the AI_ADDRCONFIG flag? If not, doing so should prevent it from
    > getting IPv6 answers when there is no IPv6 address configured on the
    > system running ntpdate.
    >
    > Whether ntpdate should be enhanced to walk the list I guess would be
    > an open question.


    ntpdate has been updated since 4.2.0, and now walks the list of returned
    addresses. It doesn't use AI_ADDRCONFIG but does call isc_net_probeipv6()
    to see if IPv6 is available, which might amount to the same thing.

    Also the method used to compare IPv6 addresses in findserver() has been
    changed, which fixes the problem mentioned above.

    --
    Ronan Flood

  7. Re: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

    On Fri, 2 Mar 2007 16:56:50 GMT, mlonisto@gmail.com (Marcos Onisto) wrote:

    > > What does "ntpq -ccl" show on your working server?

    >
    > $ ntpq -ccl
    > status=0303 clk_fault, last_clk_fault
    > device="Spectracom WWVB/GPS Receivers",
    > timecode=" 07 061 16:50:46.001 S", poll=5348, noreply=0, badformat=0,
    > baddata=90, fudgetime1=0.000, stratum=0, refid=WWVB, flags=0


    The timecode is Spectracom format 2. I note by the way that
    refclock_wwvb also supports the Netclock/GPS, so possibly this
    *is* a GPS rather than WWVB clock -- I don't know if you would
    be able to receive WWVB in Brazil, actually ...

    > > I asked you before what "ls -l /dev/wwvb2" shows ...

    >
    > $ ls -l /dev/wwv*
    > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 49 Jul 4 2006 /dev/wwvb1 ->
    > ../devices/pci@1f,0/pci@1,1/ebus@1/su@14,3803f8:a
    > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root other 49 Jul 3 2006 /dev/wwvb2 ->
    > ../devices/pci@1f,0/pci@1,1/ebus@1/su@14,3602f8:b


    Uh, I don't know what that means, I expected a link to /dev/term/b
    or /dev/cua/b rather than the raw device, but if it works OK.

    I think that's as far as I get; you need to find out exactly what
    you're connecting to and what the various cables are doing. There
    are PDF manuals for various Spectracom clocks available on the
    net if they might help.

    --
    Ronan Flood

  8. Re: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

    Ronan Flood wrote:
    > ntpdate has been updated since 4.2.0, and now walks the list of
    > returned addresses. It doesn't use AI_ADDRCONFIG but does call
    > isc_net_probeipv6() to see if IPv6 is available, which might amount
    > to the same thing.


    I guess it depends on whether or not ntpdate wants to see IP addresses
    it won't use - ie filter/ignore them itself rather than letting
    getaddrinfo do it.

    rick jones
    --
    The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak.
    The real question is "Can it be patched?"
    these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
    feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

  9. Re: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

    Rick Jones wrote:
    > Ronan Flood wrote:
    >> ntpdate has been updated since 4.2.0, and now walks the list of
    >> returned addresses. It doesn't use AI_ADDRCONFIG but does call
    >> isc_net_probeipv6() to see if IPv6 is available, which might amount
    >> to the same thing.

    >
    > I guess it depends on whether or not ntpdate wants to see IP addresses
    > it won't use - ie filter/ignore them itself rather than letting
    > getaddrinfo do it.
    >
    > rick jones


    The code checks to see if IPv6 is enabled and sets af_family to either
    AF_UNSPEC or AF_INET depending on whether or not IPv6 is enabled or not.
    Unfortunately AI_ADDRCONFIG is not availabe on all platforms so we don't
    use it.

    Danny
    _______________________________________________
    questions mailing list
    questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
    https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions


  10. Re: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

    Rick Jones wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> The code checks to see if IPv6 is enabled and sets af_family to either
    >> AF_UNSPEC or AF_INET depending on whether or not IPv6 is enabled or not.
    >> Unfortunately AI_ADDRCONFIG is not availabe on all platforms so we don't
    >> use it.

    >
    > Interesting - I was considering using AI_ADDRCONFIG in netperf. Which
    > platforms lack support for AI_ADDRCONFIG?
    >
    > thanks,
    >
    > rick jones
    >
    >

    Windows doesn't support it until Vista (but then I'm only adding
    transport support for IPv6 for Windows now)! And you will see this with
    older platforms. We had to emulate getaddrinfo() for older platforms.

    Are you looking at doing performance testing for NTP like you've done
    for BIND?

    Danny
    _______________________________________________
    questions mailing list
    questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
    https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions


  11. Re: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

    Rick Jones wrote:
    >> Windows doesn't support it until Vista (but then I'm only adding
    >> transport support for IPv6 for Windows now)! And you will see this with
    >> older platforms. We had to emulate getaddrinfo() for older platforms.

    >
    > Sounds like stuffing those checks into the emulation of getaddrinfo()
    > and then supporting AI_ADDRINFO to the main code would be a good thing -
    > that way when someone uses the ntp code as an example they will be
    > seeing goodness


    You're right about that except that the getaddrinfo() emulation code
    will never support IPv6. getaddrinfo() was designed to support both IPv4
    and IPv6 but if you don't have the function in your library on your
    system it's reasonable to only assume IPv4. If you look carefully, it
    basically translates into a gethostbyname() wich can only handle IPv4
    anyway. So why bother?

    On the other hand adding it into the code to force the real code to
    check if possible would be useful since people have systems set up that
    can support IPv6 but didn't set up the infrastructure on the machine so
    there are no IPv6 interface addresses but it can retrieve an IPv6
    address as a result of the lookup.

    >
    >> Are you looking at doing performance testing for NTP like you've done
    >> for BIND?

    >
    > Hadn't really thought about it - didn't think that NTP had performance
    > issues. I suppose if folks think it important something could be added
    > to netperf4 (which I cannot recall if it uses AI_ADDRCONFIG or not
    >


    I know of no performance issues with NTP even when I try and bang it
    hard for testing purposes.

    > http://www.netperf.org/svn/netperf4/trunk
    >
    > althought there is also the place where I'm trying to "GObjectify" things:
    >
    > http://www.netperf.org/svn/netperf4/...ject_migration
    >
    > rick jones
    > BTW, since I'm not subscribed to questions@lists.ntp.isc.org those folks
    > only see stuff in the replies
    >


    We have a two-way gateway between questions and cptn so everyone sees
    everything...

    Danny
    _______________________________________________
    questions mailing list
    questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
    https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions


  12. Re: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

    Danny,

    For record, I lit up a couple of Vistae here and they immediately found
    each other with IPv6.

    Dave

    Danny Mayer wrote:
    > Rick Jones wrote:
    >
    >>>Windows doesn't support it until Vista (but then I'm only adding
    >>>transport support for IPv6 for Windows now)! And you will see this with
    >>>older platforms. We had to emulate getaddrinfo() for older platforms.

    >>
    >>Sounds like stuffing those checks into the emulation of getaddrinfo()
    >>and then supporting AI_ADDRINFO to the main code would be a good thing -
    >>that way when someone uses the ntp code as an example they will be
    >>seeing goodness

    >
    >
    > You're right about that except that the getaddrinfo() emulation code
    > will never support IPv6. getaddrinfo() was designed to support both IPv4
    > and IPv6 but if you don't have the function in your library on your
    > system it's reasonable to only assume IPv4. If you look carefully, it
    > basically translates into a gethostbyname() wich can only handle IPv4
    > anyway. So why bother?
    >
    > On the other hand adding it into the code to force the real code to
    > check if possible would be useful since people have systems set up that
    > can support IPv6 but didn't set up the infrastructure on the machine so
    > there are no IPv6 interface addresses but it can retrieve an IPv6
    > address as a result of the lookup.
    >
    >
    >>>Are you looking at doing performance testing for NTP like you've done
    >>>for BIND?

    >>
    >>Hadn't really thought about it - didn't think that NTP had performance
    >>issues. I suppose if folks think it important something could be added
    >>to netperf4 (which I cannot recall if it uses AI_ADDRCONFIG or not
    >>

    >
    >
    > I know of no performance issues with NTP even when I try and bang it
    > hard for testing purposes.
    >
    >
    >>http://www.netperf.org/svn/netperf4/trunk
    >>
    >>althought there is also the place where I'm trying to "GObjectify" things:
    >>
    >>http://www.netperf.org/svn/netperf4/...ject_migration
    >>
    >>rick jones
    >>BTW, since I'm not subscribed to questions@lists.ntp.isc.org those folks
    >>only see stuff in the replies
    >>

    >
    >
    > We have a two-way gateway between questions and cptn so everyone sees
    > everything...
    >
    > Danny
    > _______________________________________________
    > questions mailing list
    > questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
    > https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
    >


  13. Re: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

    mills@udel.edu wrote:
    > Danny,
    >
    > For record, I lit up a couple of Vistae here and they immediately found
    > each other with IPv6.
    >
    > Dave


    Dave,

    What exactly do you mean by that? Are they running ntpd? I haven't
    enabled support for IPv6 on Windows in ntp though I'm working on it.
    Microsoft has done stuff in w32tm but I don't know what or how well or
    badly it interacts with our version of ntpd.

    Danny
    _______________________________________________
    questions mailing list
    questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
    https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions


  14. Re: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

    Danny,

    My observation had nothing to do with NTP. I happened to install Vista
    and noticed during configuration that the address claimed for my other
    Vista machine was IPv6. I noticed in the properties box that the IPv4
    and IPv6 stacks are separately enabled. I don't know at the moment how
    to properly configure my Freebies and Sunses on the same wire for IPv6.

    Hmm. Wonder if Autokey works in Vista with IPv6.

    Actually, I'd like to do that as model for bringing up IPv6 all across
    campus. I am told I have the only IPv6 configurations on campus.
    Probably, the IT department hasn't yet realized that. This should be fun.

    Dave

    Danny Mayer wrote:
    > mills@udel.edu wrote:
    >
    >>Danny,
    >>
    >>For record, I lit up a couple of Vistae here and they immediately found
    >>each other with IPv6.
    >>
    >>Dave

    >
    >
    > Dave,
    >
    > What exactly do you mean by that? Are they running ntpd? I haven't
    > enabled support for IPv6 on Windows in ntp though I'm working on it.
    > Microsoft has done stuff in w32tm but I don't know what or how well or
    > badly it interacts with our version of ntpd.
    >
    > Danny
    > _______________________________________________
    > questions mailing list
    > questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
    > https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
    >


  15. Re: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

    David L. Mills wrote:
    > Danny,
    >
    > My observation had nothing to do with NTP. I happened to install Vista
    > and noticed during configuration that the address claimed for my other
    > Vista machine was IPv6. I noticed in the properties box that the IPv4
    > and IPv6 stacks are separately enabled. I don't know at the moment how
    > to properly configure my Freebies and Sunses on the same wire for IPv6.
    >


    We should be able to help out there. I thought that was already set up
    on the flock and the backroom. Are you talking about elsewhere?

    > Hmm. Wonder if Autokey works in Vista with IPv6.
    >


    Well you'll have to wait for me to get the infrastructure work done in
    ntpd for Windows and then you will be able to run ntpd on all your
    systems with Autokey. I haven't had the bandwidth to test autokey on
    IPv4 on Windows, let alone consider IPv6.

    > Actually, I'd like to do that as model for bringing up IPv6 all across
    > campus. I am told I have the only IPv6 configurations on campus.
    > Probably, the IT department hasn't yet realized that. This should be fun.
    >
    > Dave
    >


    I'm sure it will. Are you running ntpd on your Winden boxen? Or do you
    allow the windows thing to take it on (and point to time.windows.com if
    I recall correctly). I only run ntpd on my boxen.

    Danny
    _______________________________________________
    questions mailing list
    questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
    https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions


  16. Re: Doubt about Syncronization of GPS SPECTRACOM(2)

    Danny,

    IPv6 at one time was set up here on the Sunses and Freebies, but various
    things have been updated and not properly maintained. The guys that kept
    things running have since gone on to other things. I' not running Ntpd
    on the Windows munchkins at present.

    Dave

    Danny Mayer wrote:
    > David L. Mills wrote:
    >
    >>Danny,
    >>
    >>My observation had nothing to do with NTP. I happened to install Vista
    >>and noticed during configuration that the address claimed for my other
    >>Vista machine was IPv6. I noticed in the properties box that the IPv4
    >>and IPv6 stacks are separately enabled. I don't know at the moment how
    >>to properly configure my Freebies and Sunses on the same wire for IPv6.
    >>

    >
    >
    > We should be able to help out there. I thought that was already set up
    > on the flock and the backroom. Are you talking about elsewhere?
    >
    >
    >>Hmm. Wonder if Autokey works in Vista with IPv6.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Well you'll have to wait for me to get the infrastructure work done in
    > ntpd for Windows and then you will be able to run ntpd on all your
    > systems with Autokey. I haven't had the bandwidth to test autokey on
    > IPv4 on Windows, let alone consider IPv6.
    >
    >
    >>Actually, I'd like to do that as model for bringing up IPv6 all across
    >>campus. I am told I have the only IPv6 configurations on campus.
    >>Probably, the IT department hasn't yet realized that. This should be fun.
    >>
    >>Dave
    >>

    >
    >
    > I'm sure it will. Are you running ntpd on your Winden boxen? Or do you
    > allow the windows thing to take it on (and point to time.windows.com if
    > I recall correctly). I only run ntpd on my boxen.
    >
    > Danny
    > _______________________________________________
    > questions mailing list
    > questions@lists.ntp.isc.org
    > https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
    >


+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2