On Thu, 08 Apr 2004, Kirk Strauser wrote: > At 2004-04-08T03:04:46Z, Christian Schnobrich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Oh, and... everybody suggests chrony as a far superior and more stable > > solution than ntpd.
For certain situations, yes. Chrony is much better for high latency, inconstant network access. Ntp is not designed for that, on purpose. Don't expect the clock to be nearly as accurate as you get out of system with a low-latency constant network access and ntpd running against good time servers... but it will be quite good enough for the casual user. > More stable? In what way? Not once in the years that I've used ntpd have I > ever had problems with it. If you don't configure ntp right, it can screw up. But that's the operator's fault IMHO. There is certainly enough documentation, and ntp isn't something an unexperienced user should be trying to setup, that is just an useless burden on the time servers. In fact, unless you need constant, very precise timekeeping across a bunch of machines, or you constantly need to ship relatories of the kind that needs accurate timekeeping against a common reference (such as system logs) somewhere, ntp is overkill. Ntpdate and Chrony, used to sync the system up once a day to a high stratum (> 2) timeserver are a better idea for most people, and much better for the whole time keeping structure. For those, Chrony looks like it is simpler to set up, and it will do better timekeeping than calling ntpdate every so often, when configured to control the host clock's time drift. -- "One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
