Date: Mon, 9 May 2011 13:24:53 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Open PR Message-ID: <20110509132453.08fa51ba@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <20110508163045.GB50963@magic.hamla.org> References: <20110508092449.1bcbd5dd@seibercom.net> <20110508163045.GB50963@magic.hamla.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 8 May 2011 12:30:46 -0400 Sahil Tandon <sahil@FreeBSD.org> wrote: > On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 09:24:49 -0400, Jerry wrote: > > > I just noticed that there appears to be an old PR, > > http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=conf/132515 that is still > > open. Has a resolution to this PR ever been resolved? > > I just noted in the audit-trail that I cannot reproduce the problem > mentioned in the PR. Are you (or anyone else) able to reproduce the > faulty behavior? I still use ntpdate myself, but according to Matthew Seaman, since the default ntp.conf now uses the iburst option, ntpd syncs so fast that the use of ntpdate is pretty much redundant. The problem with the patch is that without iburst a separate blocking ntpd instance is too slow to replace ntpdate. With iburst there will be two initial bursts in rapid succession, which could be considered abusive. Personally I've always regarded ntpd_sync_on_start as a non-blocking alternative to ntpdate rather than a drop in replacement, in which case this PR is more a feature request than a bug. Simply replacing the non-blocking option with an inferior version of ntpdate would be a bad idea IMO.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110509132453.08fa51ba>