[ntp:hackers] Re: Config file format

David L. Mills mills at udel.edu
Mon Feb 21 17:29:15 PST 2005


P-H,

I wish you hadn't mintioned the C word. Let's not even think about doing 
anything remoetly like Cisco. That's a nonstarter of nonstarters. Forget 
about ntpdc; it's a dead horse. I don't understand your comment about 
ntpq and the configuration file. In principle, they have nothing to do 
with each other.

Dave

Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

>In message <421A344A.30205 at cloudview.com>, John Pettitt writes:
>
>
>>So if we forget how the config gets to the daemon for a moment and look
>>at the file format - what's the collective wisdom on my suggestion to
>>use the same syntax as isc dhcpd?  
>>
>
>Can I make a pitch here ?
>
>I'm very much in favour of config files and interactive tools using
>the same commands, sort of the way cisco routers do it.
>
>Being consistent this way is much easier for the administrator and
>requires a lot less documentation.  Today we have three different
>syntax'es for "use this NTP server", one for ntp.conf, one for ntpq(8)
>and one for ntpdc(8).
>
>The hierarchy style of config files (like named and dhcpd) doesn't
>lend itself easily to such a concept, but is the only way to sensibly
>handle configuration files which are thousands of lines long.
>
>On the other hand, the average ntpd config file is less than 10
>lines long, so we should not need to put a big and complex hierarchy
>on it.
>
>Poul-Henning
>
>




More information about the hackers mailing list