[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Danny Mayer) writes: >> >> They have no idea unless I tell them. And if it actually disciplines the >> clock better, then they would be idiots if they took that attitude. Of >> course convincing that it actually does discipline it better might be the >> challenge. >>
>The quality of the packets should be what counts here rather than the >specific implementation and I have seen nothing here that indicates that >chrony is not a good candidate for the pool. The last discussion on >openntp indicated that there were many issues with it but we don't know >what has changed since then. For the pool, being able to query the >server is important to review the quality of each packet but to my >knowledge only ntpd has implemented the query capability. That should >not stop an implementation being a good candidate for the pool. Yes, I guess this is a counterexample to my claim that they could not tell the difference. ntpq -p chrony.machine would not give any response. It would probably not be hard to include that functionality into chrony, since it is already there --chronyc is the control portion and it has extensive reporting capability--but it is not ntpq. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
