[email protected] said: > And yet people do that for some reason, and then end up in a circular > dependency loop. For instance you might want to have accurate timestamps in > syslog, but ntpd might want to write to syslog, so which one do you start > first? And if you start ntpd first, will you make syslog wait on it? What > happens when the network is down (laptop, whatever)?
That's a general problem with ntp. Using the pool (via server or pool commands) doesn't change anything, at least in theory. Their may be bugs/quirks or minor details in one path that aren't in the other. > I have always hold having anything wait on ntp for that reason in Debian. > But I see that the dovecot init script calls ntp-wait, because it kills > itself if the time goes back. The usual problem in that area is data bases that don't know what to do when time goes backwards. They need to set another flag/parameter to prevent that possibility during normal operations. (I forget what it is.) If you get things wrong, it can take a long long long time for the clock to get fixed. > So basicly my question is that those 10s will now increase if the pool > option is used in combination with iburst? It shouldn't. I tried several cases and didn't see any problems. Note that if you are using ntp-wait, it defaults to polling every 6 seconds. Use -s 1 to shave off a few seconds. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ pool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
