On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 05:40:44PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > On Thursday 25 October 2007 17.24:58 Sam Mason wrote: > > But the case that Adrian was talking about was with an "intermittent" > > connection, so NTP probably wouldn't be running anyway. Maybe I'm > > missing something. > > My idea is to have ntpd running in these cases. Every time connection goes > life, you tell it to do ntp packet exchanges. So if the network comes > online often enough, you get proper ntp sync where you usually would only > be able to run sntp clients. (This would have to be optimized by options > like "use burst as long as not synchronized" and so on.)
Without knowing more about the algorithm that NTP uses to synchronise I don't know whether it would actually be able to do a better job than irregular sntp requests. It'd be nice to think so, but life is never that easy. > This is also more and more academic as the old "dial up to drop and fetch > email" scenario is something people don't even remember (not that I'm old > enough to have seen it.) OTOH my laptop could use a setup like this. > Assuming I finally get suspend/resume to work and both the kernel's > timekeeping code and ntpd are written to properly deal with that :-] I'd have thought that with things like OLPC and the more dynamic nature of computer networks are going to make this more relevant. A lot of current network research is going into more dynamic systems and how you handle things like this more reasonably. Desktop PCs and larger, i.e. what we're all used to, are very static in nature. But phones/PDAs are getting pretty advanced and it would be nice to know they could be counted upon. Not sure how much of this is relevant to ntp-pool though! Sam _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
