Bruce Marshall wrote:
People who have more stringent needs for time control than just a desktop would probably want something better. Yes. But given a twice a day update, I can't see that there would be much difference.
The Big Trouble(tm) starts when things happen you do not expect to happen.
And yes, I used to run ntpd and it worked just fine. Just don't think I need the resource usage required.
People - - - be aware that from now on you will need to submit justification for any solutions or help you try to provide. Full HOW-TO's of the absolute *best* way to accomplish any task (even tho there may be 10 best ways to do it) will be required. Perhaps I should then justify, why I prefer ntpd? The difference between ntpdate and ntpd is that ntpdate will adjust the time in one big step, setting the time backwards or forward to the necessary value. ntpd on the other hand does its best to avoid such a step and strives to adjust the clock speed instead to approach the correct time in small incremental steps, while the system time will not make any strange jumps.
If you keep the time updated and your system (clock) is working properly, there shouldn't be any 'big' changes.
You should not rely on "if", if you have an important server to run. It happened to more than one admin that cron did not run for whatever reason. Some days later you notice that cron isn't running, and restart crond. Shrug, no big deal, you think. One hour later you collegue is tearing his hair out because the replication doesn't work. I hope that this does not happen to you, but it's better to prevent even the possibility of this to happen. Do not design your infrastructure more fragile than necessary. Sandy -- List replies only please! Please address PMs to: news-reply2 (@) japantest (.) homelinux (.) com