Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 18:16:32 -0800 From: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Should ntpdate REQUIRE named? Message-ID: <20060116021632.GB22516@odin.ac.hmc.edu> In-Reply-To: <43C97EB0.4090306@FreeBSD.org> References: <43C97EB0.4090306@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 02:44:00PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote: > Question came up on -stable yesterday about a user who has ntp servers by > hostname in ntp.conf, and because of an unrelated ordering problem > ntp[date] started before named, so they failed. On all the systems I've > examined, named starts right after SERVERS, and ntpdate right after that. > While there are theoretically good reasons why one might want it the other > way around, I think for the vast majority of our users named should start > first. > > Any comments, objections? Overall, I'd say moving it would be fine. One concern I might have is if named's internal timers are confused by having the clock stepped. I'm not enough of a bind expert to have any idea if that's an issue, though I suspect there wouldn't be serious problems. -- Brooks -- Any statement of the form "X is the one, true Y" is FALSE. PGP fingerprint 655D 519C 26A7 82E7 2529 9BF0 5D8E 8BE9 F238 1AD4 [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFDywH/XY6L6fI4GtQRAizCAKCog9wY9YzvHgyAOqQt9GZnbUYTGwCgrrpe 5JHF/cMIa7c4nJk21jU2KYo= =s6JK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060116021632.GB22516>