Harlan Stenn wrote: > > Why would ntpd be exiting during a warm start?
Because we are discussing using it with the -q option. If you just use -g, it will take a lot longer to converge within a few milliseconds, as it will not slew at the maximum rate. If you use -q, you need to force a step if you want fast convergence. > > For the case I'm describing the startup script sequence is to fire up 'ntpd > -g' early. If there are applications that need the system clock to be > on-track stable (even if a wiggle is being dealt with), that's 'state 4', > and running 'ntp-wait' before starting those services is, to the best of my > knowledge, all that is required. State 4 means within 128ms and using the normal control loop, which has a time constant of around an hour. > David> For a cold start, it won't reach state 4 for a further 900 seconds > David> after first priming the clock filter. > > If the system has a good drift file, I disagree with you. The definition of cold start is that there is no drift file. > And what is the big deal with using different config files? The config file > mechanism has "include" capability so it is trivial to to easily maintain > common 'base' configuration with customizations for separate start/run > phases. You are now talking about using -q. The difficulty is that people have enough trouble getting the run phase config file right. > > But the bigger problem is why are you insisting on separate start/run > phases? This has not been "best practice" for quite a while, and if you > insist on using this method you will be running in to the exact problems you > are describing. > No, the best advice is to understand why you have been using ntpdate -b so > far and understand the pros/cons of the new choices. We are talking about system managers and package creators, neither of which have much time to study the details. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
