[ntp:questions] Re: Correcting my time servers clock drift on Alpha ES40s / Tru64
David L. Mills
mills at udel.edu
Mon Oct 24 05:18:23 UTC 2005
You claim to have built from v4.2.0, but your log banner shows an
earlier version. I have been using Unix since the early 1980s, but
readily admit you are more expert than me. Can you understand the
massive misinformation, time to compose these messages, understanding
your questions and trying to formulate a reply your operating system
causes? We've spent collectively probably several hours on keyboarding
and never got around to anwering your original question. Time to get off
the bus and move on.
Tom Smith wrote:
> Brad Knowles wrote:
>> At 11:05 AM -0400 2005-10-23, Tom Smith wrote:
>>> ntpd V4.2.0 built from source and started via a link named "xntpd":
>> [opinion omitted]
>> Moreover, since the logged lines in question do not come from our
>> source code, they either have to come from the kernel, or they have to
>> come from a version of our code which has been modified.
> Brad, perhaps you are not familiar with the format of system logs and/or
> did not understand the point.
> 20 Jul 17:40:44 xntpd: ntpd 4.0.98a Wed Oct 16 17:36:24 EDT 2002
> Oct 23 00:34:02 seeaxp xntpd: ntpd 4.2.0 at 1.1161-r Tue Feb 8
> 16:04:28 EST 2005 (1)
> The portion of the message up to and including the PID and the colon
> following it is from syslogd. It identifies the time and the source of the
> message - the name of the executable (or the name of the link to it that
> was used) and the PID of the instance responsible for the message.
> The portion of the log entry after that is the actual message that issued
> by the application. Note that in both cases above, the version message
> by the application identifies itself as "ntpd", as you would like, and
> its specific version. The second example above, shown to emphasize the
> is from the released V4.2.0 downloaded from the project site, built from
> installed as /usr/local/bin/ntpd, and started via a symbolic link to it
> named "xntpd".
> There has been NO modification to the code, and the messages, as well as
> of the others shown, DO come from "your" source code. Had it instead
> been started
> via a link named "thingamabob", the syslogd part of the message would show
> "thingamabob" instead of "xntpd", the application part of the message
> would be
> unchanged, and it would still be an unmodified instance of ntpd running.
> The matter of what to call the executable, which is irrelevant to the
> of this application, is best left to the judgment of users who may have
> dependencies, such as pre-exisiting scripts and procedures, that
> actually care
> about things like that.
More information about the questions