On 25-10-07 19:25, Sam Mason wrote: > 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.
I don't know exactly, but I'd be surprised if NTP does NOT do a better job. Even if you do a time request once a week, NTP can compensate a clock that gains or looses 1 minute/week. After a few weeks NTP will keep the clock within a few seconds, while with sntp you will be off 1 minute each week again. The only requirement (theoretical) is a free running clock with more or less constant deviation. If the free running clock gains 1 minute in one week, but looses a minute in another, then you need small intervals. Arnold _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
