> On 26/07/2017, at 6:38 PM, Miroslav Lichvar <mlich...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Interesting. Do you have a packet capture you could share?

I didn't think to keep a copy of the packet trace. From a cursory inspection it 
appeared to send an NTP packet to the server and get a response. That's all. 
The was some log activity as a result, reporting a bunch of data that didn't 
make much sense without the source code. 15 minutes later it did the same thing 

> Replacing ntpd with a smaller implementation makes perfect sense to
> me, at least for the default case. IIRC there was a daemon
> (pacemaker?) that controlled ntpd. I think this was necessary for
> good power saving, but I think there were some reports that the
> timekeeping wasn't very good.

Pacemaker just didn't work at all. It would drift way off then stomp on the 
clock with settimeofday().

And I expect you are right about not using chrony because of the GPL. They 
claim timed has power saving features, probably based on what they did with 

Bryan Christianson

To unsubscribe email chrony-users-requ...@chrony.tuxfamily.org
with "unsubscribe" in the subject.
For help email chrony-users-requ...@chrony.tuxfamily.org
with "help" in the subject.
Trouble?  Email listmas...@chrony.tuxfamily.org.

Reply via email to