It would be helpful if time /s could be enhanced to support the use of NTP, and in particular the NTP Pool servers (see http://www.pool.ntp.org).
time /s - enhancement request
- Thread starter modio
- Start date
- Jun
- 111
- 1
Modio wrote:
implemented in 11.0.30, the official release build of 11.0. At least it
seems to be working for me. Have you tried it?
--
Howard
Although I never saw it mentioned anywhere, I believe all this was
implemented in 11.0.30, the official release build of 11.0. At least it
seems to be working for me. Have you tried it?
--
Howard
- May
- 13,547
- 197
On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:38:49 -0600, Howard Goldstein <>
wrote:
|---Quote---
|>
|> It would be helpful if time /s could be enhanced to support the use of
|> NTP, and in particular the NTP Pool servers (see http://www.pool.ntp.org).
|>
|---End Quote---
|Although I never saw it mentioned anywhere, I believe all this was
|implemented in 11.0.30, the official release build of 11.0. At least it
|seems to be working for me. Have you tried it?
It *is* using NTP (port 123, UDP) now, though, apparently not correctly. I just
used it (42 ms round trip) and my clock is now more than .9 sec off (>900 ms)
(according to NIST's software and my TIMESYNC, which agree).
--
- Vince
wrote:
|---Quote---
|>
|> It would be helpful if time /s could be enhanced to support the use of
|> NTP, and in particular the NTP Pool servers (see http://www.pool.ntp.org).
|>
|---End Quote---
|Although I never saw it mentioned anywhere, I believe all this was
|implemented in 11.0.30, the official release build of 11.0. At least it
|seems to be working for me. Have you tried it?
It *is* using NTP (port 123, UDP) now, though, apparently not correctly. I just
used it (42 ms round trip) and my clock is now more than .9 sec off (>900 ms)
(according to NIST's software and my TIMESYNC, which agree).
--
- Vince
- May
- 13,547
- 197
Sorry, I didn't realize they used the same port.