I wrote:
> After some research I'm tending to think that many (if not most) of
> the scripts that require $time, shouldn't (or at least should only
> require hwclockfirst). I also don't see that we still need two
> hwclock scripts.
BTW hwclockfirst.sh and hwclock.sh add about a 1.5 second delay.
Petter Reinholdtsen writes:
> Yes, such change need to be done very carefully and in stages, to
> avoid dependency loops. See #542602 for a discussion on the ntp order
> relative to $syslog.
After some research I'm tending to think that many (if not most) of the
scripts that require $time, should
[John Hasler]
> No, wait. Chrony depends on things that depend indirectly on $time
> (so does ntp, IIRC).
Yes, such change need to be done very carefully and in stages, to
avoid dependency loops. See #542602 for a discussion on the ntp order
relative to $syslog. :)
Happy hacking,
--
Petter Rei
Petter Reinholdtsen writes:
> Actually, [a chrony file in insserv.conf.d] would help, because all
> the parts making up $time need to be satisfied before those depending
> on $time will start.
Then that solves my problem (should apply to ntp too) if adding a file to
insserv.conf.d containing
$tim
[John Hasler]
> As Peter says, it would add it to the existing line. That wouldn't
> really help as hwclock is always present and would satisfy the $time
> requirements before chrony started.
Actually, it would help, because all the parts making up $time need to
be satisfied before those dependi
Petter Reinholdtsen writes:
> If you are going to do this, it might be a good idea to try to do it
> before the syslog collector starts, as most daemons depend on $syslog
> and would thus start after the clock is correct.
Unfortunately, chrony also wants $syslog.
--
John Hasler
--
To UNSUBSCRI
Edward Allcutt writes:
> You could append +chrony to the $time line in /etc/insserv.conf as a
> local fix. You might be able to ship a /etc/insserv.conf.d/chrony that
> to that effect but I'm unsure whether that would replace or add to the
> existing line.
As Peter says, it would add it to the exi
Jaldhar H. Vyas writes:
> I haven't really looked into the new dependency-based stuff so this
> might be a naive question but wouldn't "X-Starts-After: chrony" in
> dovecots init script be a better idea?
There is no such thing as far as I know (and I should have written
"X-Start-Before": no "s").
[Edward Allcutt]
> You could append +chrony to the $time line in /etc/insserv.conf as a local
> fix. You might be able to ship a /etc/insserv.conf.d/chrony that to that
> effect but I'm unsure whether that would replace or add to the existing
> line. I couldn't find documentation on exactly how th
On Tue, 3 Aug 2010, John Hasler wrote:
I wrote:
Well, it's a reason. But note that such backward stepping would only
happen when your clock is really screwed up.
brian writes:
It actually used to happen every reboot of my server, which is why I'm
aware of the dovecot problem. When ntp (or n
[John Hasler]
> Would it be unacceptable for Chrony to step the clock (particularly
> back) during boot?
If you are going to do this, it might be a good idea to try to do it
before the syslog collector starts, as most daemons depend on $syslog
and would thus start after the clock is correct.
Happ
John Hasler debian.org> writes:
>
> I wrote:
> > Well, it's a reason. But note that such backward stepping would only
> > happen when your clock is really screwed up.
>
> brian writes:
> > It actually used to happen every reboot of my server, which is why I'm
> > aware of the dovecot problem.
I wrote:
> Well, it's a reason. But note that such backward stepping would only
> happen when your clock is really screwed up.
brian writes:
> It actually used to happen every reboot of my server, which is why I'm
> aware of the dovecot problem. When ntp (or ntpdate, I'm not sure
> which) would
On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 06:29:21PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Well, it's a reason. But note that such backward stepping would only
> happen when your clock is really screwed up.
It actually used to happen every reboot of my server, which is why I'm
aware of the dovecot problem. When ntp (or ntp
brian m. carlson writes:
> I don't think it would be okay unless you can either make sure that
> dovecot handles this gracefully (and that involves not needing to be
> restarted or disconnecting users)...
I don't see how I can do that.
> ...or change the time only before normal (non-time-related)
On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 04:24:52PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Would it be unacceptable for Chrony to step the clock (particularly
> back) during boot? This would only happen when the clock was at least
> 30 seconds off but I'm concerned that it might screw some of the daemons
> that might already
On Mon, Aug 02, 2010 at 04:24:52PM -0500, John Hasler wrote:
> Would it be unacceptable for Chrony to step the clock (particularly
> back) during boot? This would only happen when the clock was at least
> 30 seconds off but I'm concerned that it might screw some of the daemons
> that might already
Would it be unacceptable for Chrony to step the clock (particularly
back) during boot? This would only happen when the clock was at least
30 seconds off but I'm concerned that it might screw some of the daemons
that might already have started. If Chrony can't step the clock it
would have to slew
18 matches
Mail list logo
