> 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
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.