* nate <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2002-12-21 16:15:35 -0800]: > > N. Thomas said: > > Contrary to what you may have heard, ntpdate does not keep your > > system clock synced. > > it can, and does I've been using it for ages. I do not like to run > ntpd on everything[1]. The less daemons listening on ports the better > for me. ntpd is more accurate then ntpdate, but doing a ntpdate > <timeserver>; hwclock --systohc works fine for me.
In this case, ntpdate is not doing the syncing, you are doing it manually with your cron job and hwclock call. Why don't you just run ntpd on the one machine that talks to the higher stratum servers and use ntpdate for your internal network? > I haven't looked into it a whole lot since ntpdate works good enough > for me, but I don't recall seeing such an option. Yes it works for you, but think about the admin running the time servers that your box connects to. Would this solution be acceptable to them? Can you imagine 100 if people did the same thing? Unless you are paying whoever runs the time server, or you both are part of the same organization, then they are providing you with a public service, and the least you can do is be kind and help reduce the load on their servers. thomas -- N. Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] Etiamsi occiderit me, in ipso sperabo -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
