William Unruh wrote:
On 2015-02-14, Paul <tik-...@bodosom.net> wrote:
On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 2:09 PM, William Unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote:
Yes but you said
"This means that if you are using say a PPS source, which gives
microsecond long term offset, it can take many hours to get there"
and I was responding to that. If you refuse to accept that your previous
statements set the context for a discussion then you're just an ANON troll.
Hardly anon. But if the context was PPS, then I agree that I was
probably wrong (not being able to remember what my test system was
doing.)
To get the discussion started, lets compare some of the differences
between chrony and ntpd.
BZZZZZT. NTPd is yesterday's news. It's core is unlikely to change absent
a security flaw. Design "discussions" about it are useless and unhelpful
(but they should still be on more relevant list). Come back when you're
ready to write about the differences between Chrony and Ntimed with reasons
to select one or the other. In the meantime be a better advocate of
alternatives to NTPd i.e. get unstuck from the past and port Chrony to
Windows.
When timed is actually out I may be interested in testing it again.
However, you discussion indicates to me that there the design of timed
had not advanced from that of ntpd. Whether it is yesterday's news or
not, it seems to be determining tomorrow nontheless.
You have not given any indication that the design discussion has moved
on from ntpd.
Research is needed, and such research should be part
of any new system. Is it there?
Ntimed has a few constraints -- no research needed:
1) Be safer (simpler) than ntpd.
2) Be smaller than ntpd.
3) Be as good or better than ntpd where better is probably slippery.
None of those indicate that anything about the design has changed. You
know much better than I do I would assume.
No idea what is unsafe about ntpd. Smaller may be possible, mainly be
cleaning up the accretion of code. And I would like to hear about what
"better" means. I have mentioned why I believe chrony is better. What do
you mean by better?
It's not clear to me if worrying about dial-up costs is an Ntimed concern
(I doubt it) but if it is for you then use Chrony.
Dialup costs? Where did I ever mention dialup costs? And chrony's
ability to handle dialup is simply an indication of its greater
flexibility. Dialup costs never played a role in the design of chrony,
except in making it flexible enough to handle the situation of
intermittent connectivity to a time source.
I am beginning to wonder who the troll is here. I have given you
detailed answers to your question, you come back with irrelevancies and
snarky comments.
Hi
I must be a troll since I disagree with you. I used chrony during
the 90's, probably because my isp was demon. I also tried ntpd but
with my pcs not being online 24/7 and using dialup for internet
connection ntpd wasn't really usable. Late 90's to 2005 I
eventually had several pcs online 24/7 and found that ntpd gave
lower and more stable offsets than chrony but I still needed to
use chrony on the dialup pc. The one big flaw with ntpd is that
when motherboard temperature changes too quickly the ntpd control
loop is broken and ntp offset can rise from < 300u to > 10ms.
I've downloaded ntimed which compiled ok so will give it a try in
a few days.
David
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
