On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 11:22:48AM -0400, Chuck wrote: > On Thursday 25 October 2007, Sam Mason wrote: > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 11:14:43AM -0400, Chuck wrote: > > > On Thursday 25 October 2007, Sam Mason wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 25, 2007 at 04:04:11PM +0200, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > > > > > (Hmmm.... this gets me thinking: a way to signal to ntpd that it > should > > > > > initiate an ntp volley with all its servers right *now* would be good > for > > > > > systems with intermittent internet connection, especially now that > ntpd > > > > > rescans interfaces and doesn't need to be restarted if net goes down > and > > > > > up. Combined with really high minpoll values this could be an > interesting > > > > > thing.) > > > > > > > > Why not just use ntp-date here? > > > > > > > > > > would have to take ntpd down to do that. > > > > But the case that Adrian was talking about was with an "intermittent" > > connection, so NTP probably wouldn't be running anyway. Maybe I'm > > missing something. > > > > i thought he was meaning where internet connection was lost for x time but > nothing changed in the host setups, then internet comes back on, like with a > fiber cut... he was saying instead of cycling ntpd, have something to have it > poll instantly. this way it would not have to 'start over' completely.
Yes, I think I was missing something. I was assuming there was *much* less time spent connected than disconnected. I think it was the "really high minpoll" that made me come to that conclusion. Sam _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
