This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

NTP does not sync

Hello,
i have a new SG330 for testing here, Firmware is up2date (9.355-1). But i have the Problem that the Time does not sync with the configured Time Servers. If i view the output of ntpq on the console i could see that the server never connects to the configured time-servers.
I also made a factory reset, but still the same.

If i use a time server from my local network, everything works.

any Ideas?

Output from ntpq -p on SG330
ntpq -p
     remote           refid      st t when poll reach   delay   offset  jitter
==============================================================================
 LOCAL(0)        .LOCL.          10 l    -  128    0    0.000    0.000   0.000
 frank2.askja.de .INIT.          16 u    -  128    0    0.000    0.000   0.000
 dn3t.de         .INIT.          16 u    -  128    0    0.000    0.000   0.000
 gromit.nocabal. .INIT.          16 u    -  128    0    0.000    0.000   0.000

if i make the same configuration (firewall, nat, timeserver ...) on my utm home (9.370) everything works as expected:

ntpq -p from utm home edition:
     remote           refid      st t when poll reach   delay   offset  jitter
==============================================================================
 LOCAL(0)        .LOCL.          10 l    -  128    0    0.000    0.000   0.000
+citadel.noetech 212.82.32.15     2 u   18   32  167   15.819   -0.436   1.746
*frank2.askja.de 130.149.17.8     2 u    -   32  377   15.873    0.406   0.858
+rs000486.fastro 192.53.103.108   2 u   29   32  377   15.473    0.722   0.719

Peter



This thread was automatically locked due to age.
Parents
  • Hi, Peter, and welcome to the UTM Community!

    It looks like you're not getting Name Resolution.  How is your setup compared to DNS Best Practice?

    Cheers - Bob

     
    Sophos UTM Community Moderator
    Sophos Certified Architect - UTM
    Sophos Certified Engineer - XG
    Gold Solution Partner since 2005
    MediaSoft, Inc. USA
Reply
  • Hi, Peter, and welcome to the UTM Community!

    It looks like you're not getting Name Resolution.  How is your setup compared to DNS Best Practice?

    Cheers - Bob

     
    Sophos UTM Community Moderator
    Sophos Certified Architect - UTM
    Sophos Certified Engineer - XG
    Gold Solution Partner since 2005
    MediaSoft, Inc. USA
Children
  • Hi Bob,

    my DNS are setup according to the Best Practice. As i explained on the UTM Home everything is working fine with that settings.

    Cheers Peter

  • If a reboot doesn't help, try deleting the entries in 'DNS Forwarders', Apply, re-enter those hosts and Apply.  If you still get no joy, I would lean on Sophos Support to get them to resolve this for you.  Please let us know your results.

    Cheers - Bob

     
    Sophos UTM Community Moderator
    Sophos Certified Architect - UTM
    Sophos Certified Engineer - XG
    Gold Solution Partner since 2005
    MediaSoft, Inc. USA
  • i have tried all these, even a factory Reset with following completly new configuration. But nothing has helped.
    i believe this is a bug in the FW 9.355-1

    Cheers Peter

  • Our unit is on 9.355, so I don't think you're dealing with a bug in that version.

    # ntpq -p
         remote           refid      st t when poll reach   delay   offset  jitter
    ==============================================================================
     LOCAL(0)        .LOCL.          10 l    -  128    0    0.000    0.000   0.000
    *triangle.kansas 128.252.19.1     2 u  472  128  170   30.173    4.671   2.231
    +104.156.99.226  164.67.62.194    2 u   80  128  377   82.895   -8.136   0.556
    +host39.0dd0.net 26.65.65.175     3 u   39  128  377   68.971    7.145  10.813

    Cheers - Bob

     
    Sophos UTM Community Moderator
    Sophos Certified Architect - UTM
    Sophos Certified Engineer - XG
    Gold Solution Partner since 2005
    MediaSoft, Inc. USA
  • The Problem is solved.

    The Switch between the UTM and provider router was faulty ...

    Cheers Peter