[ntp:questions] Re: Correcting my time servers clock drift on Alpha ES40s / Tru64
David L. Mills
mills at udel.edu
Mon Oct 24 21:22:05 UTC 2005
I agree. The ntpq rv includes a banner what reveals the build time,
version and system and at least for Sun the modifier. As pointed out in
a reply to a private message, this is probably a sufficient signature
for our purposes.
I did a stupid thing for not asking for this information in the first
place. Newsreaders be advised, it would save much time and sweat if the
ntpq "version" and "processor" information is included with the query.
Brian Utterback wrote:
> David L. Mills wrote:
>> You are absolutely correct. What the Corpsmen need to know is that, if
>> the vendor does something surprising, we need a machanism to detect
>> that and immediatly deflect to the vendor's helpdesk. I am very
>> serious. The distribtution needs a signature.
> I don't think that a signature is possible. You could establish a
> "best practice" such that some kind of "modified" banner appeared
> in the logs, but a signature would mean that it would change for
> each and every change made by all the developers.
> Note that the banner Solaris displays is:
> xntpd 3-5.93e+sun 03/08/29 16:23:05 (1.4)
> The "+sun" being the giveaway. Failing that, I think that we need to
> be liberal in what we accept. Innocent until proven guilty. The
> newsgroup is essentially "best effort" anyway. If anybody thinks that
> the code is not vanilla, then just don't respond. If the reason you
> think that the code is not vanilla is relevant to the discussion,
> then post your thinking. No need to waste hours discussing whether
> or not it is "supported", since we are all donating our time, someone
> else might be willing to forge ahead even if the code is not vanilla.
More information about the questions