On Mon, 7 May 2007 18:35:13 -0500
Jeffrey Goldberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On May 7, 2007, at 5:02 PM, RW wrote:
> > If the time error is zeroed by ntpdate, and there's a drift-file, I
> > don't see that the actual drift value makes much difference. I
> > suspect that any quartz clock is overkill.
> As someone already mentioned, drift data doesn't really solve the
> problem if the amount of drift varies (often with temperature, and
> sometimes dramatically with sleep). The clock on my wife's G5 iMac
> seems to be erratic, but I haven't (and won't) bother to investigate
> further. If her system is up to 2 seconds off for a bit after
> waking from sleep, so be it. (If I ever start using kerberos around
> the house, I will have to address that.)
> If a machine is up for months, ntpdate may have been run in the
> distant past, so you can still a fair amount of error.
> ntpd is really a very light weight thing. When things are ticking
> over nicely, it may make just one query every few hours and still
> keep very good time.
I was questioning the need for a low-drift system clock on a machine
that *is* running ntpd, not the need for ntpd.
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"