[ntp:questions] 1 Machine, 2 NICs, 2 Instances of ntpd; Possible?
unruh-spam at physics.ubc.ca
Fri Mar 14 12:40:35 UTC 2008
"Maarten Wiltink" <maarten at kittensandcats.net> writes:
>"Danny Mayer" <mayer at ntp.isc.org> wrote in message
>news:47D9ECFF.6030201 at ntp.isc.org...
>> Maarten Wiltink wrote:
>>> As a software guy, I've wondered before about the monolithic nature
>>> of the NTP package. Splitting it into a client and server part ...
>> Maarten, NTP is unusual in that it does not lend itself to separation
>> of client from server. This is not about statistics but about the
>> nature of how it operates and is used. ...
>Could you say more about that? I realise that it's not as clean cut as
>the division between an FTP client and server, and that NTP may be
>better served by a model like for example the server always requiring
>some interchangeable client module(s?) being plugged into it (whether
>network associations or hardware reference clocks, as mentioned).
>The client part might operate without a server, or perhaps a downgraded
>server that does not serve time but only offers status monitoring.
Sure, but the server cannot operate without the client. YOu can certainly
write an SNTP client, which is never a server. But servers need the full
>There are several different useage scenarios for NTP. Someone with a
>web server farm might be interested in a client that keeps his servers
>on time, but lets them be web servers, not time servers.
>I realise that there is a mechanism to do this. I realise that I'm
>speaking from the sideline. I'm just pointing out that everybody gets
>all the code, all the time, and then has to restrict out the bits they
>don't want. It seems like a somewhat unstructured way to build a big
>system to me.
>>> Also, the much-sought feature of re-resolving dried up associations
>>> could be done from a cron job with ntpq/ntpdc. Determining for certain
>>> what configuration to use might be a problem.
>> I'll be working on it. I just need to get other things done too.
>I'm sure we all do appreciate that. (-:
More information about the questions