On Thursday 25 October 2007 17.24:58 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.
My idea is to have ntpd running in these cases. Every time connection goes
life, you tell it to do ntp packet exchanges. So if the network comes
online often enough, you get proper ntp sync where you usually would only
be able to run sntp clients. (This would have to be optimized by options
like "use burst as long as not synchronized" and so on.)
This is also more and more academic as the old "dial up to drop and fetch
email" scenario is something people don't even remember (not that I'm old
enough to have seen it.) OTOH my laptop could use a setup like this.
Assuming I finally get suspend/resume to work and both the kernel's
timekeeping code and ntpd are written to properly deal with that :-]
cheers
-- vbi
--
"I got more room in iptables then they got ip allocations :)"
-- Some Bastard, news.admin.net-abuse.email, 2004-02-13
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
