Hello Patrik, > > connman builds up available timeservers and keeps them in a list, each > > timeservers is tried and used in turn > > > > if a timeserver fails (not resolvable, not in sync, kiss-of-death), > > current timeserver is REMOVED from the list and next one in the list is > > used > > > > is this the intended behaviour? > > So far yes. Every 2h ConnMan wakes up and compares the existing > timeserver list against a freshly created one. If the first element of > the current and the fresh timeserver lists differ, the timeserver > resolution is restarted using the fresh list. This way more preferred > timeservers are retried every once in a while should they have been > removed due to connectivity problems. And of course if the connection is > changed, the timeserver list is reset. See commit > 3b70a3d5a93fb229c2caacf6b2df43dd9ea5b6bd for details. > > > cycling through the timeserver list is a good idea, but why removing them? > > after a temporary network outage, a connection may recover but looses all > > its timeservers > > The problem here is to know when to stop and not keep on cycling through > the list banging on timeservers that are not answering. At the same time > more preferred ones should be used over the global ones. > > Perhaps a modification could be made so that if the list gets exhausted, > the set of timeservers is retried in something like 5-10 mins?
sounds like a good idea; thanks for the explanation! thanks, p. -- Peter Meerwald +43-664-2444418 (mobile) _______________________________________________ connman mailing list [email protected] https://lists.connman.net/mailman/listinfo/connman
