Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Dale]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Dale  wrote:
>> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>> If there were some kind of trade-off I'd see the argument, but the
>>> worst case here is just that they may or may not need it.  For
>>> something with some benefit and almost no drawback that seems like a
>>> wrong reason to avoid LVM.
>>>
>> Sure, it may help a very tiny percentage of people but I suspect it will
>> be tiny.  Mostly, for the same reasons I pointed out in another reply on
>> this thread.
>>
> IMO the important question isn't how many it helps, but how many it hurts.
>
> If it helps a tiny number, and it hurts none, then it is a worthwhile default.
>

That wasn't the point tho.  I'm sure a init thingy helps some small
number of people but it also hurts some because they have to add one
more layer that can fail.  I've had init thingys fail on me several
times with different distros.  If one is not going to use LVM properly,
why install it by default and risk a upgrade causing a problem and the
lose of data?   I use LVM here.  I have two 3TBs drives for my /home
directory.  Before that, I didn't use LVM.  Those of us who knows what
it is and uses it are not that large a percentage of people. 

The point is, one shouldn't add LVM to a system when the user will never
use it or worse yet, even know what it is or what it is for.  It just
adds one more thing that can cause problems. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 3:25 PM, Dale  wrote:
> Rich Freeman wrote:
>>
>> If there were some kind of trade-off I'd see the argument, but the
>> worst case here is just that they may or may not need it.  For
>> something with some benefit and almost no drawback that seems like a
>> wrong reason to avoid LVM.
>>
>
> Sure, it may help a very tiny percentage of people but I suspect it will
> be tiny.  Mostly, for the same reasons I pointed out in another reply on
> this thread.
>

IMO the important question isn't how many it helps, but how many it hurts.

If it helps a tiny number, and it hurts none, then it is a worthwhile default.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Dale]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Dale  wrote:
>> The problem is,  if the hard drives fills up, most won't know that they
>> can use LVM to expand it by adding a new drive.  Since they don't know
>> what LVM is, they don't know about the option they have and won't use it
>> since they don't know it exists.
> Honestly, I'm not sure how many of these users will be installing
> Ubuntu in the first place.
>
> However, if they do use LVM and they end up asking somebody
> knowledgeable for help, that person will be very happy to find that
> the system has LVM installed.
>
> If there were some kind of trade-off I'd see the argument, but the
> worst case here is just that they may or may not need it.  For
> something with some benefit and almost no drawback that seems like a
> wrong reason to avoid LVM.
>

Even I've installed Ubuntu and friends for others in the past and it has
LVM on it.  Thing is, the person that actually uses the computer doesn't
even know it exists.  They also wouldn't know how to install Linux, of
any flavor, or windoze either for that matter.   Far to many only know
how to push the button on the front to turn it on. 

Sure, it may help a very tiny percentage of people but I suspect it will
be tiny.  Mostly, for the same reasons I pointed out in another reply on
this thread. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Rich Freeman]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 9:41 AM, Dale  wrote:
>
> The problem is,  if the hard drives fills up, most won't know that they
> can use LVM to expand it by adding a new drive.  Since they don't know
> what LVM is, they don't know about the option they have and won't use it
> since they don't know it exists.

Honestly, I'm not sure how many of these users will be installing
Ubuntu in the first place.

However, if they do use LVM and they end up asking somebody
knowledgeable for help, that person will be very happy to find that
the system has LVM installed.

If there were some kind of trade-off I'd see the argument, but the
worst case here is just that they may or may not need it.  For
something with some benefit and almost no drawback that seems like a
wrong reason to avoid LVM.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Dale]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Alan McKinnon  
> wrote:
>> But I'm not talking about it for users like you and I.
>> I've said over and over in this thread about regular users and you seem
>> to be missing that part; it's the entirety of everything I'm saying
>> here. I didn't say LVM shouldn't be available, I said that installers
>> shouldn't put it up front and centre in the user's face claiming that
>> it's awesome.
>>
>> Your average user has no idea what volume management even is and are
>> completely lost when it comes up. They just have no mental image of what
>> it even could be and a tool that is not understood and not used is not
>> worth installing.
>>
> And yet most Ubuntu users who have no idea what volume management are
> running just fine with it all the same, and at some point if they ever
> need to move things around it will make life that much easier for
> them.
>
> The fact that they've had no issues running this as their default
> configuration demonstrates that it isn't unsuitable for "regular
> users."  I'm well aware of the argument you're making.  I simply
> disagree with it, as apparently do the maintainers of Ubuntu and the
> businessmen making money off of it.  Decisions on a
> commercially-backed distro generally don't come down to the whim of
> one person, at least not if they actually cause problems.
>
> As far as symlinks go - they're a royal pain in the rear as they force
> you to micromanage what ends up on which disk, and then when your
> convoluted rat's nest of symlinks starts to become a problem it
> becomes that much harder to fix it.  Symlinks and mountpoints used to
> be the only tool in the toolbox, and to this day half of your OS is in
> /usr and half isn't as a result.  :)
>
> Volume management is a best practice, and it is right for Ubuntu to
> make it a default for those who don't understand the pros and
> virtually non-existant cons.
>

The problem is,  if the hard drives fills up, most won't know that they
can use LVM to expand it by adding a new drive.  Since they don't know
what LVM is, they don't know about the option they have and won't use it
since they don't know it exists.  Using LVM isn't the complete answer. 
Knowing what it is and what it does is what completes the answer to the
problem.  If the user doesn't know what LVM is, then they will be in the
same situation as they would be if it wasn't used at all.  So, using LVM
or not, they are no better off in reality. 

Most people have no idea what goes on inside their computer.  All they
know is, clicking that Firefox/Chrome/Seamonkey/etc icon opens a web
browser and makes Facebook/email/etc work.  Sad but some of my own
family/friends are like that. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Walter Dnes]

On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 12:14:54AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote
> On 30/08/2017 13:25, Walter Dnes wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 09:49:58AM -0700, Rich Freeman wrote
> >> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Alan McKinnon  
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Another example is LVM. You or I might really need it (debatable now we
> >>> have ZFS) but the average user has no concept of what it might be, or
> >>> care. So why do Ubuntu installers shove it in your face as something
> >>> really cool that you should really really use? Because the author of the
> >>> installer thinks it's really cool, that's why.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Maybe.
> >>
> >> Or maybe because when that computer's hard drive starts getting full
> >> and you add a new hard drive, if you're using lvm with a few commands
> >> you can make your /home expand across both drives, while with straight
> >> partitions that is a lot more work.
> > 
> >   1) I don't recall having added a hard drive for many years.
> > 
> >   2) How difficult is it to symlink directories?
> 
> Oh that part is easy. One command, ln, with the option -s.
> 
> Now go and get your grandma to do it, and come tell us what happened.

  Now go and get your grandma to find and buy the right type of internal
drive for her computer (i.e. with the right type of connector), install
it into the drive bay, and adjust /etc/fstab accordingly, and come tell
us what happened.

-- 
Walter Dnes 
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Dale]

Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Alan McKinnon  
> wrote:
>> Another example is LVM. You or I might really need it (debatable now we
>> have ZFS) but the average user has no concept of what it might be, or
>> care. So why do Ubuntu installers shove it in your face as something
>> really cool that you should really really use? Because the author of the
>> installer thinks it's really cool, that's why.
>>
> Maybe.
>
> Or maybe because when that computer's hard drive starts getting full
> and you add a new hard drive, if you're using lvm with a few commands
> you can make your /home expand across both drives, while with straight
> partitions that is a lot more work.
>
> There really is no reason not to use some kind of volume management
> solution these days, whether that is zfs/btrfs, or lvm.  When your
> data is on lvm it is MUCH easier to move it around than if you just
> put it directly on drive partitions.
>
> Arguably you want more flexibility around adding/removing drives on
> the desktop than in the enterprise, because desktop users don't add
> and remove drives in sets of 5-6.  This is why I think btrfs is
> actually superior to zfs conceptually on the desktop (setting aside
> the fact that it will tend to eat your data) - the flexibility matters
> more on the small scale because you want to go from a 3-disk RAID5 to
> a 4-disk RAID5.
>
>


You have a point but most people I know use a computer for years, until
it is about dead due to age, and the hard drive isn't even half full.  I
have a neighbor that bought a computer several years ago with a 1TB
drive.  Last I looked, it had less than 200GBs of data on it, including
the OS. 

Sad to say but when a drive fills up, most people would think the system
is broken and just go buy a new one, while losing the data at the same
time.  Most people I know, don't even think about transferring data from
their old system to their new system.  They just assume a video or
whatever won't work except on that old system so they lose everything. 

It's sad to say, even about some of my friends and even family members,
most are clueless about how a computer works and how easy it can be to
transfer data from one system to another.  Same can be said with
backups.  Especially if you don't have a lot, online backup services can
be very easy and require nothing from the user. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 6:13 PM, Alan McKinnon  wrote:
>
> But I'm not talking about it for users like you and I.
> I've said over and over in this thread about regular users and you seem
> to be missing that part; it's the entirety of everything I'm saying
> here. I didn't say LVM shouldn't be available, I said that installers
> shouldn't put it up front and centre in the user's face claiming that
> it's awesome.
>
> Your average user has no idea what volume management even is and are
> completely lost when it comes up. They just have no mental image of what
> it even could be and a tool that is not understood and not used is not
> worth installing.
>

And yet most Ubuntu users who have no idea what volume management are
running just fine with it all the same, and at some point if they ever
need to move things around it will make life that much easier for
them.

The fact that they've had no issues running this as their default
configuration demonstrates that it isn't unsuitable for "regular
users."  I'm well aware of the argument you're making.  I simply
disagree with it, as apparently do the maintainers of Ubuntu and the
businessmen making money off of it.  Decisions on a
commercially-backed distro generally don't come down to the whim of
one person, at least not if they actually cause problems.

As far as symlinks go - they're a royal pain in the rear as they force
you to micromanage what ends up on which disk, and then when your
convoluted rat's nest of symlinks starts to become a problem it
becomes that much harder to fix it.  Symlinks and mountpoints used to
be the only tool in the toolbox, and to this day half of your OS is in
/usr and half isn't as a result.  :)

Volume management is a best practice, and it is right for Ubuntu to
make it a default for those who don't understand the pros and
virtually non-existant cons.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Alan McKinnon]

On 30/08/2017 13:25, Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 09:49:58AM -0700, Rich Freeman wrote
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Alan McKinnon  
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Another example is LVM. You or I might really need it (debatable now we
>>> have ZFS) but the average user has no concept of what it might be, or
>>> care. So why do Ubuntu installers shove it in your face as something
>>> really cool that you should really really use? Because the author of the
>>> installer thinks it's really cool, that's why.
>>>
>>
>> Maybe.
>>
>> Or maybe because when that computer's hard drive starts getting full
>> and you add a new hard drive, if you're using lvm with a few commands
>> you can make your /home expand across both drives, while with straight
>> partitions that is a lot more work.
> 
>   1) I don't recall having added a hard drive for many years.
> 
>   2) How difficult is it to symlink directories?

Oh that part is easy. One command, ln, with the option -s.

Now go and get your grandma to do it, and come tell us what happened.


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Alan McKinnon]

On 29/08/2017 18:49, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Alan McKinnon  
> wrote:
>>
>> Another example is LVM. You or I might really need it (debatable now we
>> have ZFS) but the average user has no concept of what it might be, or
>> care. So why do Ubuntu installers shove it in your face as something
>> really cool that you should really really use? Because the author of the
>> installer thinks it's really cool, that's why.
>>
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> Or maybe because when that computer's hard drive starts getting full
> and you add a new hard drive, if you're using lvm with a few commands
> you can make your /home expand across both drives, while with straight
> partitions that is a lot more work.
> 
> There really is no reason not to use some kind of volume management
> solution these days, whether that is zfs/btrfs, or lvm.  When your
> data is on lvm it is MUCH easier to move it around than if you just
> put it directly on drive partitions.
> 
> Arguably you want more flexibility around adding/removing drives on
> the desktop than in the enterprise, because desktop users don't add
> and remove drives in sets of 5-6.  This is why I think btrfs is
> actually superior to zfs conceptually on the desktop (setting aside
> the fact that it will tend to eat your data) - the flexibility matters
> more on the small scale because you want to go from a 3-disk RAID5 to
> a 4-disk RAID5.


Yes, I know what LVM is for and how to drive it. I think it's wonderful
software for what it was designed to do, and it's "does what it says on
the box" score is way up there with much other good stuff.

But I'm not talking about it for users like you and I.
I've said over and over in this thread about regular users and you seem
to be missing that part; it's the entirety of everything I'm saying
here. I didn't say LVM shouldn't be available, I said that installers
shouldn't put it up front and centre in the user's face claiming that
it's awesome.

Your average user has no idea what volume management even is and are
completely lost when it comes up. They just have no mental image of what
it even could be and a tool that is not understood and not used is not
worth installing.


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Walter Dnes]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 09:49:58AM -0700, Rich Freeman wrote
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Alan McKinnon  
> wrote:
> >
> > Another example is LVM. You or I might really need it (debatable now we
> > have ZFS) but the average user has no concept of what it might be, or
> > care. So why do Ubuntu installers shove it in your face as something
> > really cool that you should really really use? Because the author of the
> > installer thinks it's really cool, that's why.
> >
> 
> Maybe.
> 
> Or maybe because when that computer's hard drive starts getting full
> and you add a new hard drive, if you're using lvm with a few commands
> you can make your /home expand across both drives, while with straight
> partitions that is a lot more work.

  1) I don't recall having added a hard drive for many years.

  2) How difficult is it to symlink directories?

-- 
Walter Dnes 
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Tuesday, 29 August 2017 14:56:34 BST J. Roeleveld wrote:
>> On 29 August 2017 14:52:45 GMT+02:00, Stroller 
>  wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> Any recommendations for a simple NTP client?
>>>
>>> I was surprised to find the clock wrong when I logged into one of my
>>> systems today.
>>>
>>> On another system I have net-misc/ntp installed. On it I have:
>>>  $ ls -1 /etc/runlevels/default/*ntp*
>>>  /etc/runlevels/default/ntp-client
>>>  /etc/runlevels/default/ntpd
>>>  $
>>>
>>> I *think* this is because ntp-client is designed not to make large
>>> adjustments, so ntpd is run at startup in case the clock is too far
>>> out.
>>>
>>> Ideally I'd like a program that performs both roles.
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for any suggestions,
>>>
>>> Stroller.
>> I switched over to chrony some time ago and it actually does what I would
>> logically expect ntpd to do.
>>
>> It's in portage.
> Me too; many years ago, when ntpd was far less capable than it seems to be 
> now.
>
> Chrony was designed to cope with long periods of not being connected to the 
> internet, as in a laptop. It will step the clock at startup (you can adjust 
> the size threshold) and slew it thereafter. It also keeps statistics of your 
> hardware clock's performance and uses them to keep as fine a control as you 
> like.
>
> It just works. Fit and forget.
>

Same here.  For some reason, I updated NTP and it wouldn't work
anymore.  I tried different configs and even a fresh config, still
wouldn't work.  I switched to chrony and the only thing I recall
changing, the server it checks in with.  I found a few that were really
close and the data could go really fast.  I still have ntp installed
tho.  I use that command to see if it is working still, once in a blue
moon. 

< ntpdate -b -u -q pool.ntp.org >
server 4.53.160.75, stratum 2, offset -0.002993, delay 0.07785
server 138.236.128.112, stratum 2, offset -0.005360, delay 0.08356
server 208.76.53.137, stratum 2, offset -0.003967, delay 0.06667
server 173.203.211.73, stratum 2, offset 0.003827, delay 0.06401
29 Aug 13:18:11 ntpdate[842]: step time server 173.203.211.73 offset
0.003827 sec


For me, that's close enough.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:32 AM, Alan McKinnon  wrote:
>
> Another example is LVM. You or I might really need it (debatable now we
> have ZFS) but the average user has no concept of what it might be, or
> care. So why do Ubuntu installers shove it in your face as something
> really cool that you should really really use? Because the author of the
> installer thinks it's really cool, that's why.
>

Maybe.

Or maybe because when that computer's hard drive starts getting full
and you add a new hard drive, if you're using lvm with a few commands
you can make your /home expand across both drives, while with straight
partitions that is a lot more work.

There really is no reason not to use some kind of volume management
solution these days, whether that is zfs/btrfs, or lvm.  When your
data is on lvm it is MUCH easier to move it around than if you just
put it directly on drive partitions.

Arguably you want more flexibility around adding/removing drives on
the desktop than in the enterprise, because desktop users don't add
and remove drives in sets of 5-6.  This is why I think btrfs is
actually superior to zfs conceptually on the desktop (setting aside
the fact that it will tend to eat your data) - the flexibility matters
more on the small scale because you want to go from a 3-disk RAID5 to
a 4-disk RAID5.


-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Alan McKinnon]

On 29/08/2017 15:57, Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Alan McKinnon  
> wrote:
>>
>> ntp is designed for timeservers that by design do not make the clock
>> jump around. Every second on the wall clock actually happens, none are
>> missing. To do that, ntp adjusts the length of a second till the
>> machine's time creeps up towards the real time as defined by the U.S
>> Navy. Unless you are running software that is extremely time-critical
>> (eg centralized auth servers, science experiments, etc) or you operate a
>> proper time server, you absolutely do not need this behaviour ever.[1]
>>
> 
> I'd argue the opposite.  Assuming your system boots with approximately
> the correct time then slewing the clock is going to be the best way to
> maintain time.

Yeah but this is Stroller, and I gave an answer specific to him.

He doesn't run a fleet of business servers in containers like you do, or
maintain awful amounts of ISP infrastructure like I do. He's a regular
guy with regular machines.

We sysadmins can easily tend to get way too involved with the specifics
of how something works and how awesome it all is, and lose sight of what
people really need.

Another example is LVM. You or I might really need it (debatable now we
have ZFS) but the average user has no concept of what it might be, or
care. So why do Ubuntu installers shove it in your face as something
really cool that you should really really use? Because the author of the
installer thinks it's really cool, that's why.

ntpdate in a cron is a really easy way to keep time more or less
accurate. The average user and his software couldn't care less about
slew and couldn't care less if his computer time is 10 seconds off or
even a minute, same with his wristwatch.

But having said that, chrony just does it all without oversight and
without even needing to make a crontab, it's the perfect fire and forget
background daemon. I keep forgetting about chrony (have no real pressing
need to get it at install time)


> Now, if you're talking about a system that starts up with no concept
> of the real time then I'd say the best approach is to do a one-time
> sync to a time server, and then run ntpd from then on to maintain the
> time using slewing.  Obviously you don't want to slew from the epoch
> to the current time.
> 
> The one-time sync strikes me as the sort of thing that might ideally
> go into an initramfs.  If you're obtaining your root filesystem over
> the network it might even be a dependency.  Doing it that early
> eliminates most of the issues with logging and running services.
> 


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday, 29 August 2017 14:56:34 BST J. Roeleveld wrote:
> On 29 August 2017 14:52:45 GMT+02:00, Stroller 
 wrote:
> >Hello,
> >
> >Any recommendations for a simple NTP client?
> >
> >I was surprised to find the clock wrong when I logged into one of my
> >systems today.
> >
> >On another system I have net-misc/ntp installed. On it I have:
> >  $ ls -1 /etc/runlevels/default/*ntp*
> >  /etc/runlevels/default/ntp-client
> >  /etc/runlevels/default/ntpd
> >  $
> >
> >I *think* this is because ntp-client is designed not to make large
> >adjustments, so ntpd is run at startup in case the clock is too far
> >out.
> >
> >Ideally I'd like a program that performs both roles.
> >
> >Thanks in advance for any suggestions,
> >
> >Stroller.
> 
> I switched over to chrony some time ago and it actually does what I would
> logically expect ntpd to do.
> 
> It's in portage.

Me too; many years ago, when ntpd was far less capable than it seems to be 
now.

Chrony was designed to cope with long periods of not being connected to the 
internet, as in a laptop. It will step the clock at startup (you can adjust 
the size threshold) and slew it thereafter. It also keeps statistics of your 
hardware clock's performance and uses them to keep as fine a control as you 
like.

It just works. Fit and forget.

-- 
Regards,
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Stroller
 wrote:
>
>> On 29 Aug 2017, at 14:19, Rich Freeman  wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Stroller
>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Any recommendations for a simple NTP client?
>>>
>>
>> systemd-timedated?
>>
>> /me ducks...
>
> Sounds good, actually.
>
> Will try to remember it for my next system, but these are both openRC.
>

Well, in all seriousness the reason systemd included it is that one of
their goals is to provide a simple client-only version of everything
(time, dhcp, etc).  So, in that sense it fits the bill perfectly.
However, I suspect it wouldn't be practical to use unless you're
already running systemd.  I wouldn't be surprised if it communicates
over dbus/etc and isn't intended to be used standalone.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 9:14 AM, Alan McKinnon  wrote:
>
> ntp is designed for timeservers that by design do not make the clock
> jump around. Every second on the wall clock actually happens, none are
> missing. To do that, ntp adjusts the length of a second till the
> machine's time creeps up towards the real time as defined by the U.S
> Navy. Unless you are running software that is extremely time-critical
> (eg centralized auth servers, science experiments, etc) or you operate a
> proper time server, you absolutely do not need this behaviour ever.[1]
>

I'd argue the opposite.  Assuming your system boots with approximately
the correct time then slewing the clock is going to be the best way to
maintain time.

Now, if you're talking about a system that starts up with no concept
of the real time then I'd say the best approach is to do a one-time
sync to a time server, and then run ntpd from then on to maintain the
time using slewing.  Obviously you don't want to slew from the epoch
to the current time.

The one-time sync strikes me as the sort of thing that might ideally
go into an initramfs.  If you're obtaining your root filesystem over
the network it might even be a dependency.  Doing it that early
eliminates most of the issues with logging and running services.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[J. Roeleveld]

On 29 August 2017 14:52:45 GMT+02:00, Stroller  
wrote:
>Hello,
>
>Any recommendations for a simple NTP client?
>
>I was surprised to find the clock wrong when I logged into one of my
>systems today.
>
>On another system I have net-misc/ntp installed. On it I have:
>
>  $ ls -1 /etc/runlevels/default/*ntp*
>  /etc/runlevels/default/ntp-client
>  /etc/runlevels/default/ntpd
>  $ 
>
>I *think* this is because ntp-client is designed not to make large
>adjustments, so ntpd is run at startup in case the clock is too far
>out.
>
>Ideally I'd like a program that performs both roles. 
>
>Thanks in advance for any suggestions,
>
>Stroller.

I switched over to chrony some time ago and it actually does what I would 
logically expect ntpd to do.

It's in portage.

--
Joost
-- 
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Stroller]

> On 29 Aug 2017, at 14:19, Rich Freeman  wrote:
> 
> On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Stroller
>  wrote:
>> 
>> Any recommendations for a simple NTP client?
>> 
> 
> systemd-timedated?
> 
> /me ducks...

Sounds good, actually.

Will try to remember it for my next system, but these are both openRC.

Stroller.

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Alan McKinnon]

On 29/08/2017 14:52, Stroller wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Any recommendations for a simple NTP client?

you asking for the simplest?

ntpdate in a cron
ntpdate in anacron (for latops and machines that are frequently off)


ntp is designed for timeservers that by design do not make the clock
jump around. Every second on the wall clock actually happens, none are
missing. To do that, ntp adjusts the length of a second till the
machine's time creeps up towards the real time as defined by the U.S
Navy. Unless you are running software that is extremely time-critical
(eg centralized auth servers, science experiments, etc) or you operate a
proper time server, you absolutely do not need this behaviour ever.[1]

Treat your computer's time like the time on your wrist watch, and set it
maybe once a day. If it's out for any reason at all, move the hands to
where they should be and be done with it.


[1] virtual machines are a whole different topic. I'm assuming you don't
have Gentoo in a guest VM.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 8:52 AM, Stroller
 wrote:
>
> Any recommendations for a simple NTP client?
>

systemd-timedated?

/me ducks...

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Simplest NTP client for standalone system?

[Ralph Seichter]

On 29.08.2017 14:52, Stroller wrote:

> Any recommendations for a simple NTP client?

Anything you dislike about net-misc/ntp, which you apparently use on
that other system of yours? It comes with both ntpd and ntp-client,
and the performance impact is minimal.

> I *think* this is because ntp-client is designed not to make large
> adjustments, so ntpd is run at startup in case the clock is too far
> out.

The other way around. See https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Ntp for more
info.

-Ralph