On May 4, 2007, at 9:10 AM, RW wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:07:34 -0400
Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sun SPARC machines have good HW clocks, and also some of the newer
Macs also seem to have consistently low values in ntp.drift and
handle timekeeping well.
Does that matter?
A good
On 07/05/07, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 4, 2007, at 9:10 AM, RW wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:07:34 -0400
Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sun SPARC machines have good HW clocks, and also some of the newer
Macs also seem to have consistently low values in ntp.drift
On Mon, 7 May 2007 12:30:29 -0700
Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 4, 2007, at 9:10 AM, RW wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:07:34 -0400
Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sun SPARC machines have good HW clocks, and also some of the newer
Macs also seem to have consistently
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
From: Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On May 4, 2007, at 9:10 AM, RW wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:07:34 -0400
Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sun SPARC machines have good HW clocks, and also some of the newer
Macs also seem to have consistently low values in ntp.drift and
handle
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 07/05/07, Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On May 4, 2007, at 9:10 AM, RW wrote:
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:07:34 -0400
Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sun SPARC machines have good HW clocks, and also some of the newer
Macs also seem to have
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.
From: Jeffrey Goldberg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
On May 7, 2007, at 6:53 PM, RW wrote:
I was questioning the need for a low-drift system clock on a machine
that *is* running ntpd, not the need for ntpd.
Ah, sorry.
However, I was adding a somewhat pedantic point of distinguishing
between low drift and inconsistent drift. High but
On Thu, 03 May 2007 11:07:34 -0400
Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sun SPARC machines have good HW clocks, and also some of the newer
Macs also seem to have consistently low values in ntp.drift and
handle timekeeping well.
Does that matter?
The RTC time is almost immediately
On May 2, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Duane Hill wrote:
I have two servers that have to have their time synchronized
between the two to within one second. What is recommended?
Currently, I have ntpd running on one and have the other
synchronizing it's time off the first.
ntp is the right way to
On Thu, 3 May 2007, Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:
On May 2, 2007, at 8:45 PM, Duane Hill wrote:
I have two servers that have to have their time synchronized between the
two to within one second. What is recommended?
Currently, I have ntpd running on one and have the other synchronizing it's
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[ ... ]
It may very well be noisier than just serving out ntp
to the local network, what with talk about elections
and such every 4 minutes, but generally everything
is kept within 0.050 seconds (and running ntpd on
all of the local machines feels like serious overkill).
Chuck Swiger [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Simply setting the date upon system boot and maybe once a day using
cron to call ntpdate or whatever is probably good enough for any
client machine, and OK for non-important servers where the exact
timekeeping doesn't matter much.
Why, when setting up
I have two servers that have to have their time synchronized between the
two to within one second. What is recommended?
Currently, I have ntpd running on one and have the other synchronizing it's
time off the first.
Thanks
___
Is that working?
If it is..seems you nailed it.
On 5/2/07, Duane Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have two servers that have to have their time synchronized between the
two to within one second. What is recommended?
Currently, I have ntpd running on one and have the other synchronizing
it's
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Jeff Mohler wrote:
Is that working?
If it is..seems you nailed it.
It is working. I just didn't know if there was another way. I will
continue on with the way it is. Thanks.
___
freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list
In the last episode (May 03), Duane Hill said:
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Jeff Mohler wrote:
Is that working?
If it is..seems you nailed it.
It is working. I just didn't know if there was another way. I will
continue on with the way it is. Thanks.
Yes, ntp is the best way to synchronise
On 02/05/07, Duane Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007, Jeff Mohler wrote:
Is that working?
If it is..seems you nailed it.
It is working. I just didn't know if there was another way. I will
continue on with the way it is. Thanks.
I prefer to have one machine (generally
19 matches
Mail list logo
