On 09/03/16 05:35, Antonio Querubin wrote:
A 7 second variance shouldn't be that much of an issue.
A time offset greater than a fraction of second suggests ntpd really
isn't time-synced.
Not sure if this is related but I've found that ntpd on SL7 systems dies
during bootup and require a man
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, John Pilkington wrote:
But doesn't SL7 use chrony?
We're talking servers (ie. always on systems) right? - where supposedly
ntpd is the better choice. I would think the mirrors are running ntpd
instead of chronyd.
But this discussion got me to rechecking again why ntpd
On 03/09/2016 03:36 AM, Antonio Querubin wrote:
On Wed, 9 Mar 2016, John Pilkington wrote:
But doesn't SL7 use chrony?
We're talking servers (ie. always on systems) right? - where
supposedly ntpd is the better choice. I would think the mirrors are
running ntpd instead of chronyd.
But thi
Hmm... looks like chronyd was installed by default under SL7 (learn something
new every day) rather than ntpd; systems seemed to still be synced and accurate
to the second. I swapped that out for ntpd. We'll see if that makes any
difference, though I doubt it. The times seemed accurate to the s
On 09/03/16 22:20, Thomas Leavitt wrote:
> Hmm... looks like chronyd was installed by default under SL7 (learn
> something new every day) rather than ntpd; systems seemed to still be synced
> and accurate to the second. I swapped that out for ntpd. We'll see if that
> makes any difference, though I
On 09/03/16 23:59, David Sommerseth wrote:
On 09/03/16 22:20, Thomas Leavitt wrote:
Hmm... looks like chronyd was installed by default under SL7 (learn
something new every day) rather than ntpd; systems seemed to still be synced
and accurate to the second. I swapped that out for ntpd. We'll see
