At 2004-04-08T15:09:21Z, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> For certain situations, yes. Chrony is much better for high latency, > inconstant network access. Ntp is not designed for that, on purpose. OK. That makes sense. > If you don't configure ntp right, it can screw up. But that's the > operator's fault IMHO. I guess I'd have to agree. Debian's ntp installer seems to do a reasonable job, although I'd like to see it suggest using "pool.ntp.org" as the default server name. > 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. I wish I had a dime for hearing "let's use the atomic clocks so our time is more accurate!" I sync my nameserver to 4 stratum 2 servers, and sync my network to that machine. I've had clients point every machine in the building at stratum 2 servers, but not understand why their machines weren't in complete agreement. > 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. Gotcha. -- Kirk Strauser In Googlis non est, ergo non est.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
