[ntp:questions] ntpd (4.2.2p1) stays "synchronized to LOCAL"

Jon Kåre Hellan jon.kare.hellan at uninett.no
Tue Dec 5 10:31:01 UTC 2006


david at djwhome.demon.co.uk (David Woolley) writes:

> In article <tLadnW4n2o3aQOnYnZ2dnUVZ_qqdnZ2d at comcast.com>,
> This also raises the question of why the local clock was configured
> in the first place.  If it had not been, ntpd would have correctly
> detected that it was in a hopeless situation and would have reported
> unsynchronised and eventually shut down.  In my view, most people shouldn't
> configure the local clock, and those that do should have thought carefully
> about it.

Under what circumstances *should* the local clock be configured?

(Your remark hit a nerve. I recently booted my laptop without network
access for the first time, and ntp wrote 0.0 into the driftfile. Sounds
like it wouldn't have done that if the local clock hadn't been
configured.)

Jon




More information about the questions mailing list