Bug#289267: [pkg-ntp-maintainers] Bug#289267: [debian-ntp] Bug#289267: ntp: NTP on ifup

[Kurt Roeckx]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 08:41:12AM +0100, Tore Anderson wrote:
> * Kurt Roeckx
> 
> > Can I suggest you run ntpd with the -x option in that case?
> 
>   I already do.
> 
> > Both ntpdate and ntpd will by default slew the time if it's smaller
> > the < 128 ms, and step when it's bigger.
> 
>   I know.  Maybe I should have been clearer though, what I'm objecting
>  to is primarily the suggestion to mimic the way Ubuntu does it, as
>  they invoke ntpdate with the "-b" parameter in the if-up.d script,
>  ensuring that the clock will _always_ leap.

-b means always step, -B means slew, and you asked for -B before?

It now seems to be using -b if it's a static interfacce.

>   I also have an objection to the if-up.d script per se, though, but
>  this is not as strong.  I simply do not expect things to happen to my
>  clock when I fiddle around with my network interfaces.  I have always
>  thought the primary task of ntpdate is to quickly get time roughly
>  correct at bootup, so that ntpd will have a much easier job of getting
>  the box completely into sync.  When this combo is working ntpd will
>  ~never step time, even without -x (barring bad hardware).  If no NTP
>  server is available at bootup, well, then you'll just have to wait for
>  a network connection and possibly step the time then.  And isn't that
>  _exactly_ what ntpd'll do when run without the -x option?  Then why
>  throw ntpdate into the mix here?  It's after all less precise than ntpd
>  so chances are you'll end up with a clock that's more out of sync than
>  before...

ntpdate shouldn't be changing time when ntpd is running, and ntp doesn't
get restrarted by default, so I guess I'm still not getting it.


Kurt