On 10/11/06, Dag Wieers <dag@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, mike.redan@xxxxxxx wrote: > > > The whole point of ntpdate is to synchronize the local clock with > > another source (ie. not the local clock). > > > > And I guess the main reason why they do not start ntpd if ntpdate > > fails, is because they have to protect other ntp clients from being > > poisoned by a wrong system clock upstream (because its source is > > unavailable). > > Hrm. What does your initscript look like for ntpd? Ie which version? I > just had a look around at some RHEL3.x and 4.x (as well as some CentOS > ones) and none of them will refuse to start ntpd if the ntpdate run > fails. The only thing they do when ntpdate fails is add the "-g" option, > which will let ntpd jump the clock more than 1000s. But no matter what, > ntpd will start. You're correct. Then I have no idea why ntpd was not running.
/me puts on his ntpd hat. ntpd will not start running if it finds it can't make a gradual change to the clock to bring it into sync. This occurs when the clock is over 1000s or the TOY chip is not responding in a way that the ntpd knows how. [If hwclock --systohc says it sets the clock but you see it doesnt.. then it can be a hardware problem of many types.] The most common reason I found ntpd not running is that it found its time all of a sudden over 1000s for some reason it didnt know about (changing timezone on the box or bad hz rate from hardware.) -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
