2015-02-18 9:45 GMT+01:00 Denys Vlasenko <[email protected]>: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 8:38 AM, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia > <[email protected]> wrote: >> I ended up using rdate on this particular case but I think it would be >> nice if ntpd could be used as described. >> >> I don't have enough knowledge about the protocol to know what are the >> implications of not waiting for the burst mode to end for option -q >> (as per Miroslav's patch). Can anyone shed some light? > > Time will be set after 2 reply packets from one peer. > Which normally would take 2-3 seconds. > > If network is down or NTP server is not replying at all, > "ntpd -q" can still wait indefinitely. I guess the same is true > for ntpdate.
In my tests, if the network is down, or the server is unreachable or does not reply, ntpdate returns almost immediately with an error message. > > If you plan for your machines to not hang at boot time > in such a case, you need to think (and test) booting > with network down. Can you provide any recommendations about this? What would be the best way to run ntpd to make sure it does not hang at boot if the network is down and/or the NTP server does not reply, but still sync the time as soon as the network is back up and/or the NTP server becomes available? Best, Guillermo Rodriguez Garcia [email protected] _______________________________________________ busybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/busybox
