OK, Let's just say that I have an NTP subnet that is capable of providing clock= synchronization=C2=A0at the 10 millisecond level over long distance WANs, = and at the 1 millisecond level for LANs for Linux clients. Sooooo, what level of accuracy would the very same NTP subnet be able to pr= ovide for Windows Clients? Thanks, Ed
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
Ed, edstuart@gmail.com wrote: > OK, > > Let's just say that I have an NTP subnet that is capable of providing clock synchronization at the 10 millisecond level over long distance WANs, and at the 1 millisecond level for LANs for Linux clients. > > Sooooo, what level of accuracy would the very same NTP subnet be able to provide for Windows Clients? I get the same question regularly from our customers and have put some general information together: https://www.meinberg.de/download/burnicki/time_synchronization_accuracy_with_ntp.pdf Martin -- Martin Burnicki Meinberg Funkuhren Bad Pyrmont Germany
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
On 19/07/2016 11:30, Martin Burnicki wrote: > Ed, > > edstuart@gmail.com wrote: >> OK, >> >> Let's just say that I have an NTP subnet that is capable of providing clock synchronization at the 10 millisecond level over long distance WANs, and at the 1 millisecond level for LANs for Linux clients. >> >> Sooooo, what level of accuracy would the very same NTP subnet be able to provide for Windows Clients? > > I get the same question regularly from our customers and have put some > general information together: > https://www.meinberg.de/download/burnicki/time_synchronization_accuracy_with_ntp.pdf > > Martin > Nice summary article, for the next version of that article you really should add: Windows 8/8.1 Windows 10 Windows (each measured version) using the built in W32Time service with appropriate (non-default) settings. Enjoy Jakob -- Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S. https://www.wisemo.com Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark. Direct +45 31 13 16 10 This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors. WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
Jakob Bohm wrote: > On 19/07/2016 11:30, Martin Burnicki wrote: >> Ed, >> >> edstuart@gmail.com wrote: >>> OK, >>> >>> Let's just say that I have an NTP subnet that is capable of providing >>> clock synchronization at the 10 millisecond level over long distance >>> WANs, and at the 1 millisecond level for LANs for Linux clients. >>> >>> Sooooo, what level of accuracy would the very same NTP subnet be able >>> to provide for Windows Clients? >> >> I get the same question regularly from our customers and have put some >> general information together: >> https://www.meinberg.de/download/burnicki/time_synchronization_accuracy_with_ntp.pdf >> >> >> Martin >> > > Nice summary article, Thanks. > for the next version of that article you really > should add: > > Windows 8/8.1 > Windows 10 Agreed. We at Meinberg are selling NTP and PTP servers, and we often get questions from customers on the accuracy we can *guarantee* at the client side. I always tell that you can't guarantee a certain accuracy, and try to explain why. So I just recently updated the information in the PDF for a customer, and I only had the measurements with Windows 7 / XP handy to show how different parameters and software versions affect the timekeeping under Windows, and I thought I could share it here. > Windows (each measured version) using the built in W32Time service with > appropriate (non-default) settings. I've played around with w32time quite some time ago, and a colleague even tried to put a table together which summarizes the peculiarities of each w32time version. However, he finally gave up because there were too many variations in the observations. So I don't think I'll spend much time on w32time. ;-) Cheers, Martin -- Martin Burnicki Meinberg Funkuhren Bad Pyrmont Germany
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
On 2016-07-19, Martin Burnicki <martin.burnicki@meinberg.de> wrote: > Jakob Bohm wrote: >> Windows (each measured version) using the built in W32Time service with >> appropriate (non-default) settings. > > I've played around with w32time quite some time ago, and a colleague > even tried to put a table together which summarizes the peculiarities of > each w32time version. However, he finally gave up because there were too > many variations in the observations. Does anyone know in what NTP version are packets from w32time in latest Windows versions? Is it still NTPv3? The reason I'm asking is detection of MS-SNTP authentication data. If anyone would be willing to share a packet dump or tcpdump -v -v output, I'd be grateful. -- Miroslav Lichvar
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
Miroslav Lichvar wrote: > On 2016-07-19, Martin Burnicki <martin.burnicki@meinberg.de> wrote: >> Jakob Bohm wrote: >>> Windows (each measured version) using the built in W32Time service with >>> appropriate (non-default) settings. >> >> I've played around with w32time quite some time ago, and a colleague >> even tried to put a table together which summarizes the peculiarities of >> each w32time version. However, he finally gave up because there were too >> many variations in the observations. > > Does anyone know in what NTP version are packets from w32time in latest > Windows versions? Is it still NTPv3? The reason I'm asking is detection > of MS-SNTP authentication data. If anyone would be willing to share a > packet dump or tcpdump -v -v output, I'd be grateful. I've sent a wireshark trace from Windows 10's w32time by email. Martin -- Martin Burnicki Meinberg Funkuhren Bad Pyrmont Germany
![]() |
0 |
![]() |
On 2016-07-19, Martin Burnicki <martin.burnicki@meinberg.de> wrote: > Miroslav Lichvar wrote: >> Does anyone know in what NTP version are packets from w32time in latest >> Windows versions? Is it still NTPv3? The reason I'm asking is detection >> of MS-SNTP authentication data. If anyone would be willing to share a >> packet dump or tcpdump -v -v output, I'd be grateful. > > I've sent a wireshark trace from Windows 10's w32time by email. Thank you, Martin. It seems it uses NTPv3 and the new ExtendedAuthenticator field (120-byte packets). This is good news as it nicely avoids ambiguity in parsing of NTPv4 extension fields. -- Miroslav Lichvar
![]() |
0 |
![]() |