On Tue, Nov 07, 2017 at 02:27:50PM -0700, James Feeney wrote:
> On 11/06/2017 09:17 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> > For example, if the initial offset was 5 seconds and the system clock
> > was already corrected by 2 seconds when another measurement is made,
> > which says the offset of the system
On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 05:17:03PM -0500, Michael Cashwell wrote:
> Since my parent process has the desired capabilities and long since dropped
> root there’s no way for it to fork/exec chronyd as root, hence the idea to
> use capabilities only.
>
> It sounds like a “more standard” approach
On 11/09/2017 05:25 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> So, if there is a large adjustment running and a new measurement says
> the offset of the clock is not what expect (e.g. the clock or the
> server has drifted for some reason), should we report by how much the
> adjustment which is still running
William G. Unruh __| Canadian Institute for| Tel: +1(604)822-3273
Physics _|___ Advanced Research _| Fax: +1(604)822-5324
UBC, Vancouver,BC _|_ Program in Cosmology | un...@physics.ubc.ca
Canada V6T 1Z1 | and Gravity __|_ www.theory.physics.ubc.ca/
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017,
On 11/09/2017 02:22 PM, Bill Unruh wrote:
> That is unclear. Chrony knows that it is out by a certain amount. That is why
> it is slewing the clock, and in a few seconds or minutes the system time will
> be exactly what it thinks NTP time is. It now finds it is out by a second.
> Does it report
William G. Unruh __| Canadian Institute for| Tel: +1(604)822-3273
Physics _|___ Advanced Research _| Fax: +1(604)822-5324
UBC, Vancouver,BC _|_ Program in Cosmology | un...@physics.ubc.ca
Canada V6T 1Z1 | and Gravity __|_ www.theory.physics.ubc.ca/
On Thu, 9 Nov 2017,
