On May 7, 2007, at 6:53 PM, RW wrote:
I was questioning the need for a low-drift system clock on a machine
that *is* running ntpd, not the need for ntpd.
Ah, sorry.
However, I was adding a somewhat pedantic point of distinguishing
between "low drift" and "inconsistent drift". High but cons
From: "Jeffrey Goldberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On May 7, 2007, at 5:02 PM, RW wrote:
If the time error is zeroed by ntpdate, and there's a drift-file, I
don't see that the actual drift value makes much difference. I suspect
that any quartz clock is overkill.
As someone already mentioned, drift
On Mon, 7 May 2007 18:35:13 -0500
Jeffrey Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 7, 2007, at 5:02 PM, RW wrote:
>
> > If the time error is zeroed by ntpdate, and there's a drift-file, I
> > don't see that the actual drift value makes much difference. I
> > suspect that any quartz clock is o
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 07/05/07, Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 4, 2007, at 9:10 AM, RW wrote:
> On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:07:34 -0400
> Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sun SPARC machines have good HW clocks, and also some of the newer
>> Macs also seem to have
From: "Chuck Swiger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On May 4, 2007, at 9:10 AM, RW wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:07:34 -0400
Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sun SPARC machines have good HW clocks, and also some of the newer
Macs also seem to have consistently low values in ntp.drift and
handle ti
On May 7, 2007, at 5:02 PM, RW wrote:
If the time error is zeroed by ntpdate, and there's a drift-file, I
don't see that the actual drift value makes much difference. I suspect
that any quartz clock is overkill.
As someone already mentioned, drift data doesn't really solve the
problem if the
On Mon, 7 May 2007 12:30:29 -0700
Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 4, 2007, at 9:10 AM, RW wrote:
> > On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:07:34 -0400
> > Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Sun SPARC machines have good HW clocks, and also some of the newer
> >> Macs also seem to have c
On 07/05/07, Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On May 4, 2007, at 9:10 AM, RW wrote:
> On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:07:34 -0400
> Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Sun SPARC machines have good HW clocks, and also some of the newer
>> Macs also seem to have consistently low values in n
On May 4, 2007, at 9:10 AM, RW wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:07:34 -0400
Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sun SPARC machines have good HW clocks, and also some of the newer
Macs also seem to have consistently low values in ntp.drift and
handle timekeeping well.
Does that matter?
A goo
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:07:34 -0400
Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Sun SPARC machines have good HW clocks, and also some of the newer
> Macs also seem to have consistently low values in ntp.drift and
> handle timekeeping well.
>
Does that matter?
The RTC time is almost immediately ove
Chuck Swiger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Simply setting the date upon system boot and maybe once a day using
> cron to call ntpdate or whatever is probably good enough for any
> client machine, and OK for non-important servers where the exact
> timekeeping doesn't matter much.
Why, when setting
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ]
It may very well be noisier than just serving out ntp
to the local network, what with talk about elections
and such every 4 minutes, but generally everything
is kept within 0.050 seconds (and running ntpd on
all of the local machines feels like serious overkill).
On Thu, 3 May 2007, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Duane Hill wrote:
I have two servers that have to have their time synchronized between the
two to within one second. What is recommended?
Currently, I have ntpd running on one and have the other synchronizing it's
tim
On May 2, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Duane Hill wrote:
I have two servers that have to have their time synchronized
between the two to within one second. What is recommended?
Currently, I have ntpd running on one and have the other
synchronizing it's time off the first.
ntp is the right way to d
On 02/05/07, Duane Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Jeff Mohler wrote:
> Is that working?
>
> If it is..seems you nailed it.
It is working. I just didn't know if there was another way. I will
continue on with the way it is. Thanks.
I prefer to have one machine (generally so
In the last episode (May 03), Duane Hill said:
> On Wed, 2 May 2007, Jeff Mohler wrote:
>
> > Is that working?
> >
> > If it is..seems you nailed it.
>
> It is working. I just didn't know if there was another way. I will
> continue on with the way it is. Thanks.
Yes, ntp is the best way to sy
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Jeff Mohler wrote:
Is that working?
If it is..seems you nailed it.
It is working. I just didn't know if there was another way. I will
continue on with the way it is. Thanks.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
http:/
Is that working?
If it is..seems you nailed it.
On 5/2/07, Duane Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have two servers that have to have their time synchronized between the
two to within one second. What is recommended?
Currently, I have ntpd running on one and have the other synchronizing
it'
18 matches
Mail list logo
