In article <ptgntvomjdbu4u20jgvh3einbshcberl52@4ax.com>,
Larry Alkoff wrote:
> I finally found a long list of stratum 2 servers on google. Most are
> unresponsive.

Probably because, as was mentioned eariler in this thread, netdate is a
different, older, and now less widely-used protocol (37/tcp) than NTP
(123/udp). You probably found David Mills' list of NTP stratum 2 NTP
servers; that page is hosted at the University of Delaware,

Some public ntpd servers still serve time, but many do not. There is no
reason I know to use netdate over ntpdate (ntpd -q).
--
/dev/rob0 - preferred_email=i$((28*28+28))@softhome.net
or put "not-spam" or "/dev/rob0" in Subject header to reply

Larry Alkoff <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2003 21:33:46 GMT, William Park <opengeometry@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
>
> >> netdate -v 129.6.15.28 132.163.4.102 131.107.1.10 207.200.81.113
> >
> >You are using Stratum 1 servers, ie.
> > time-a.nist.gov
> > time-B.timefreq.bldrdoc.gov
> > time-nw.nist.gov
> > nist1.aol-ca.truetime.com
> >You know you shouldn't do that. Use Stratum 2 or lower.
>
> Actually I didn't know these were stratum 1 servers. They are not
> marked as such.
>
> I finally found a long list of stratum 2 servers on google. Most are
> unresponsive.
>
> Will keep trying.
>
> Larry

There are lots. See
http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/servers.html
http://www.ntp.org

Also, you may want to consider
time.apple.com
time.windows.com
which are stratum 2 (ntp only) servers. They are not listed, but Apple
and Microsoft do have more money than any Linux company (other than
Novell, maybe).

--
William Park, Open Geometry Consulting, <opengeometry@yahoo.ca>
Linux solution for data management and processing.

Larry Alkoff wrote:
> On 13 Dec 2003 21:33:46 GMT, William Park <opengeometry@yahoo.ca>
> wrote:
>
>>>netdate -v 129.6.15.28 132.163.4.102 131.107.1.10 207.200.81.113
>>
>>You are using Stratum 1 servers, ie.
>> time-a.nist.gov
>> time-B.timefreq.bldrdoc.gov
>> time-nw.nist.gov
>> nist1.aol-ca.truetime.com
>>You know you shouldn't do that. Use Stratum 2 or lower.
>
> Actually I didn't know these were stratum 1 servers. They are not
> marked as such.
>
> I finally found a long list of stratum 2 servers on google. Most are
> unresponsive.
>
> Will keep trying.
>
> Larry

Go ahead and keep using the servers you are using.

Here are the servers you can use. Right from the nist.gov list. Read the
page, they say nothing about not using them. I would think if they
didn't want you to use them, they would say so. Don't you think!

http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq...e-servers.html

All of the IP numbers you listed are on this list. Go ahead and keep
using them.

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 11:21:39 -0500, "R." <-@-.com> wrote:

>Larry Alkoff wrote:
>> On 13 Dec 2003 21:33:46 GMT, William Park <opengeometry@yahoo.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>netdate -v 129.6.15.28 132.163.4.102 131.107.1.10 207.200.81.113
>>>
>>>You are using Stratum 1 servers, ie.
>>> time-a.nist.gov
>>> time-B.timefreq.bldrdoc.gov
>>> time-nw.nist.gov
>>> nist1.aol-ca.truetime.com
>>>You know you shouldn't do that. Use Stratum 2 or lower.
>>
>> Actually I didn't know these were stratum 1 servers. They are not
>> marked as such.
>>
>> I finally found a long list of stratum 2 servers on google. Most are
>> unresponsive.
>>
>> Will keep trying.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Go ahead and keep using the servers you are using.
>
>Here are the servers you can use. Right from the nist.gov list. Read the
>page, they say nothing about not using them. I would think if they
>didn't want you to use them, they would say so. Don't you think!
>
>http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq...e-servers.html
>
>All of the IP numbers you listed are on this list. Go ahead and keep
>using them.

I found a site that listed stratum 2 time servers. Most of them don't
work. Of 76 servers, only 16 worked! Some connected but refused to
give the time (notification may be required) and some just plain hung
up.

So I changed my server string as follows:
localhost localhost tier1_server tier1_server_here_in_texas
another_tier2_server.
This special configuration will only re-set the time if all three
remote servers agree and are different than the localhost time.

In my small home network I really don't need the time to be
superaccurate <g>.

I also heavily modified a script from the netdate tutorial to call the
servers, do other housekeeping functions and then log the completion.
At the risk of being chastised for using bandwidth, here it is.

--------------- setdate script ----------------------------
#!/bin/sh
# lba: setdate - Use netdate to get NIST date/time and set
# Note: getdate will only work correctly with local time
# if exists /etc/localtime ->
/usr/share/zoneinfo/US/Central
# Place link in /etc/cron.daily to update every day.


#lets see what the current system date is
echo -n "The current System date and time is "
date

echo -n "The CMOS/Hardware clock date/time is "
hwclock --show

# now to set the system date to the most reliable time server
# note: -l 5 is default difference limit of 5 seconds

# Example of use of netdate:
# netdate -l 3 localhost localhost udp dcn-gate dcn1 tcp bbn-unix
# This example gives localhost two votes and declares it to usually
have the most accu*
# rate time. All three foreign hosts must agree within three
seconds and also differ
# from localhosts by more than three seconds for the time to be set.
Thus the time
# will be set only if it really needs to be.


# Servers are localhost x2, 1 Primary, 2 Secondary
SERVERS="localhost localhost time-c.timefreq.bldrdoc.gov
tick.greyware.com clock-2.cs.cmu.edu"

TIMEOUT=10
KILLSIG=9 # from man 7 signal

echo
echo Getting time from servers...
# Note: netdate uses /etc/localtime
netdate -l 30 $SERVERS &

sleep $TIMEOUT # needed to recover if servers hang

# killall netdate returns 0 if netdate killed, 1 or 255 if nothing to
kill.
if [ "killall netdate" = 0 ]; then
NETDATE=0
else NETDATE=1
fi

# timeout -s 9 $TIMEOUT netdate -v $SERVERS # could not get this
to work

echo ""
echo The Sytem and CMOS/Hardware clock date/time will be set to:
date

# Set the CMOS/hardware clock
hwclock --localtime --systohc

# Show time (alias from now)
echo ""
echo -n "Now is "; date +"%A %B %e, %Y %l:%M %P"

# Log completion Want Sat Dec 12 mm:hh:ss 2003 with message
if [ $NETDATE = 0 ]; then
echo `date "+%b %d %X"` Setdate completed but netdate had to be
killed. >>/var/log/messages
else
echo `date "+%b %d %X"` Setdate completed ok. >>/var/log/messages
fi


--
Larry Alkoff N2LA - Austin TX
My address is: larryalk is_at mindspring dot com

Since this was already explained I do not expect a reply, but I am
posting for the record anyway.

In article <iiiqtv8ockhti2ochs2jt40t11rut3qnvt@4ax.com>,
Larry Alkoff wrote:
> I found a site that listed stratum 2 time servers. Most of them don't
> work. Of 76 servers, only 16 worked! Some connected but refused to

What was this site? Google for "stratum 2 time servers" with the "I'm
feeling lucky" button brings up this page:
http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/clock2a.html
But, there are 171 listed, and 78 in the USA alone.

These are, however, NTP servers. They are not "Time" servers. It is not
surprising that a few NTP sites still offer Time protocol service; nor
is it odd to find that most do not.

I Googled a bit and I cannot find any comparable list of Time protocol
servers. NIST seems to have a few, but not even close to 76 sites. Some
old mirrors of the above udel.edu page list fewer than the present
number, but ... a list of NTP servers is not applicable to a non-NTP
client! It's quite like trying to tune in 88.9 MHz FM on a radio set to
the AM band. You MAY find a station at the corresponding spot on the AM
dial, but it most assuredly is not 88.9 MHz FM.

(Oops, do analog radio dials still exist?)

> In my small home network I really don't need the time to be
> superaccurate <g>.

True, but neither is it needed to be inaccurate. NTP (ntpdate) provides
better performance in addition to better accuracy. Again I know of no
single advantage in using Time protocol over NTP. Anyone who does know
of one is invited to post a correction.

OH OH OH ... I think I may have thought of a reason why one might not
use ntpdate ... it is in a separate, optional package. OTOH netdate is
in the required "tcpip" meta-package. And netdate at 11KB is about 1/3
the size of ntpdate: such shameful bloat!!
--
/dev/rob0 - preferred_email=i$((28*28+28))@softhome.net
or put "not-spam" or "/dev/rob0" in Subject header to reply

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 2003-12-15, /dev/rob0 <rob0@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> (Oops, do analog radio dials still exist?)

My 1985 Camry has analog radio dials. My old Pioneer
receiver has a volume dial.

- --keith

- --
kkeller-usenet@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
(try just my userid to email me)
AOLSFAQ=http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/cgi-bin/fom

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/3h3MhVcNCxZ5ID8RAvMcAJ9xhJ4seR5KFKr32xN6qXj/ZjGJoACfXgg4
X9kEB9OcakEzgWi2I9c1XW8=
=kum7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
NotDashEscaped: You need GnuPG to verify this message

On Mon, 15 Dec 2003 11:43:21 -0800, /dev/rob0 <rob0@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> (Oops, do analog radio dials still exist?)

Unfortunately, they do. My clock radio, which I purchased about three
months ago, uses an analog dial, making it more complicated to find the
right station than a digital one. Why they even put numbers on the
faceplates of these things, I simply do not understand.

--
Rob | If not safe,
Email and Jabber: | one can never be free.
athlonrob at axpr dot net |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/3h8ahm6KEoOOAe0RAmQuAJ40VZ5eTMej5JQ7mOTWisE69Ja22g CdHecc
vTbFAC4Lv4IxUAlWLHTM5cU=
=OZzY
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

/dev/rob0 <rob0@gmx.co.uk> wrote:
> (Oops, do analog radio dials still exist?)

Well, I still have and use old clock-radio. :-)

> True, but neither is it needed to be inaccurate. NTP (ntpdate)
> provides better performance in addition to better accuracy. Again I
> know of no single advantage in using Time protocol over NTP. Anyone
> who does know of one is invited to post a correction.
>
> OH OH OH ... I think I may have thought of a reason why one might not
> use ntpdate ... it is in a separate, optional package. OTOH netdate is
> in the required "tcpip" meta-package. And netdate at 11KB is about 1/3
> the size of ntpdate: such shameful bloat!!

Also, Time/Daytime is served by 'inetd' itself.

Getting back on issue, though... I think using Stratum 1 servers, say,
once a day or two should be okey. Here are Stratum 2 NTP servers that
also run Time or Daytime:
time.nrc.ca -- NTP (2), Time
time.chu.nrc.ca -- NTP (2), Time
clock.fmt.he.net -- NTP (claims 1, but is 2), Time, Daytime

--
William Park, Open Geometry Consulting, <opengeometry@yahoo.ca>
Linux solution for data management and processing.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

/dev/rob0 <rob0@gmx.co.uk> is thought to have typed the
following text on 2003-12-15:

> (Oops, do analog radio dials still exist?)
>
My Sansui has one.

But it isn't really a recent model, although it does sound better than
more recent models.[0][1]

[0] As long as there's a strong signal.
[1] more recent models by other manufacturers that is, I only recently
found out Sansui was back in business, but haven't had the chance
to hear any of their kit.

- --
Bartosz Oudekerk

Play Rogue, visit exotic locations, meet strange creatures
and kill them.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/3i2m256ZyNYAOpkRAoBaAKCfY8LZfAFRswI62Rpu2zC6mtXLFw CfXZnC
sRcfR5T0ihH7TD/s/g8y2JI=
=nQD1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Bartosz Oudekerk wrote:
> [1] more recent models by other manufacturers that is, I only recently
> found out Sansui was back in business, but haven't had the chance
> to hear any of their kit.

my father bought a sansui when he was in his early twenties. that system
lasted for about 20 years. he bought another sansui set then, but it didn't
have the same quality. it certainly didn't last as long...

--
Joost Kremers joostkremers@yahoo.com
Slackware doesn't have any quirks. Other distros have quirks. Slackware's
just pure Linux.