* Kurt Roeckx > Can I suggest you run ntpd with the -x option in that case?
I already do. > Both ntpdate and ntpd will by default slew the time if it's smaller > the < 128 ms, and step when it's bigger. I know. Maybe I should have been clearer though, what I'm objecting to is primarily the suggestion to mimic the way Ubuntu does it, as they invoke ntpdate with the "-b" parameter in the if-up.d script, ensuring that the clock will _always_ leap. I also have an objection to the if-up.d script per se, though, but this is not as strong. I simply do not expect things to happen to my clock when I fiddle around with my network interfaces. I have always thought the primary task of ntpdate is to quickly get time roughly correct at bootup, so that ntpd will have a much easier job of getting the box completely into sync. When this combo is working ntpd will ~never step time, even without -x (barring bad hardware). If no NTP server is available at bootup, well, then you'll just have to wait for a network connection and possibly step the time then. And isn't that _exactly_ what ntpd'll do when run without the -x option? Then why throw ntpdate into the mix here? It's after all less precise than ntpd so chances are you'll end up with a clock that's more out of sync than before... -- Tore Anderson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
