David Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > On 26/04/2014 05:05, Harlan Stenn wrote: >> William Unruh writes: > [] >>> More recent ntpd combine server and client in one program. >>> Not sure when that was. >> >> It's been the case for at least 20 years' time. >> >> This is something that may be different in the upcoming rewrite. >> >> H > > I hope not, as it would make much of the documentation out of date, and > destroy much of the simplicity of deployment from the user's point of > view. > > I would find it annoying to have to tell someone "Oh, but if you want to > pass on the time you need to uninstall what you have now and replace it > with the client/server version".
I think a useful separation would be between one part that is a server and a client of network time, and another part (many other parts) that are the interfaces to local refclocks. That could be in the form of a main program with loadable modules (like the Linux kernel), or by reducing the current ntpd to have zero refclocks, and have a set of separate programs that each serve up a refclock as an NTP source that the ntpd program just polls via 127.127.x.y which should be a localhost. Of course something would have to be arranged so that the stratum is not unnecessarily increased by one. This solution provides a lean ntpd program that is fit for most users, and it facilitates the easy addition of refclock drivers. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions