Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
Chuck Swiger wrote:
On Mar 10, 2010, at 1:05 PM, John Hasler wrote:
I gather that crony is intended for machines with infrequent network
connections.
That was one of the goals when it was first developed ten years ago. It
has gone far beyond that now.
OK.
I can't imagine trying to run it for a permanently networked
stratum-1 timesource.
Why?
I've seen monitoring data from the NTP pool project for people using
other NTP implementations, and they don't seem to be nearly as
reliable timesources as the original ntpd implementation. It's not
just my opinion:
http://www.pool.ntp.org/en/join/configuration.html
"Use the standard ntpd
We are all for software diversity, but a significant percentage of the
"it's not working" questions that come in are for software other than
ntpd. You can use the pool with any program speaking NTP, but if you
are going to join the pool we recommend you use ntpd."
Can you give me a pointer to some IPs in the NTP pool using crony, so
we can check their scores at http://www.pool.ntp.org/scores/IP ...?
Regards,
I believe that the servers in the NTP pool are ALL using NTPD. Chrony
is an entirely separate product unrelated to NTPD except for the fact
that it does something vaguely similar.
In 1997, before I'd used ntpd I had chrony on a pair of systems
used for dialup connections peered together. Later, ntpd on my
servers worked without any problem using the two chrony sources.
I've not been able to successfully peer between chrony and ntpd
though, but I don't really have spare hardware at moment to
really test this out.
David
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
