Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 21:59:37 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Brooks Davis <brooks@one-eyed-alien.net> Cc: freebsd-rc@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Should ntpdate REQUIRE named? Message-ID: <43CB3649.40704@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20060116021632.GB22516@odin.ac.hmc.edu> References: <43C97EB0.4090306@FreeBSD.org> <20060116021632.GB22516@odin.ac.hmc.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brooks Davis wrote:
> 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.
If the name server were acting as a resolver (local and otherwise) and had a
pending query during a big step it would probably discard the result, but
the worst that could happen there is a requery. The other case where I could
think off hand where you'd want ntp to run first is in a situation where
timestamps on the logs were critical. However, in that scenario the user is
free to alter the ordering themselves.
Thanks for the feedback,
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43CB3649.40704>