unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote: > On 2013-03-05, Rob <nom...@example.com> wrote: >> David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote: >>> Abu Abdullah wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Does this mean ntpd is not supposed to be run in parallel? Is there any >>> >>> It is not seen as something anyone would want to do. >> >> I could understand why someone would want to run one instance that >> controls the clock, and another instance that only serves time to >> clients on the (inter)net and cannot control the clock. > > You could? I cannot. ntpd both controls the clock and serves time. Why > would you want to split those?
Because the users of the clock service may be able to disturb that service, e.g. by overloading it, by making it crash sending it invalid requests, etc. Some people may consider the service to keep their own clock correct to be more important than the service to tell time to others. Seeing the reply that the OP posted in the meantime, I was not too far off. He wants a separation between the internal use of NTP to sync the local and other important systems, from the service to give time to others. I think it is a reasonable wish. Certainly not something that nobody would want to do. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
