Oops. Sorry for the off-list reply. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Donald Murray, P.Eng. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Feb 12, 2007 12:45 PM Subject: Re: [ntp:questions] Using ntpdate -b SERVER shortly after SERVER boots To: Steve Kostecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 2/12/07, Steve Kostecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > "Donald Murray, P.Eng." said: > >Yes, that's how we adjust the time. > > Great! You'd be surprised at how many people get that wrong. Trying to be clueful here. I'm a big proponent of ntp, and long overdue in joining this list. > I don't call if I mentioned the ntpd '-g' option. The '-g' option allows > ntpd to excedd the 1024 second sanity limit and make an unlimited > initial step. If you can use '-g' with your version of ntpd you don't > need ntpdate. If you want the initial time setting to block the system > boot you'll need to invoke 'ntpd -gq'. For our systems it's simpler to use the ntpdate/date approach than start ntpd and wait for it to sync. We need to know when the clock may be stepped, and insure our apps are not running. > >- attempt 'ntpdate -b SERVER' > >- if ntpdate fails, use a CGI > > <pedant> > s/CGI/script/ > </pedant> It's a CGI on the SERVER, called by a script on the CLIENT. > >to obtain the current date on SERVER; feed that to /bin/date > > And then start ntpd? Yes, we then start ntpd. > > That sounds like a reasonable fall back. > > The real benefit to using NTP instead of rdate, etc al, is that ntpd > will attempt to steer your clock to the correct time (by trimming the > clock frequency) instead of just stepping it periodically. But you do > have to do what ever works within your limitations. Agreed. Glad I'm not the only one that thinks this is reasonable given our unreasonable constraints. Thanks again! _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
