Should ntpdate REQUIRE named?

[Doug Barton]

Brooks Davis wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 14, 2006 at 02:44:00PM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
>> Question came up on -stable yesterday about a user who has ntp servers by 
>> hostname in ntp.conf, and because of an unrelated ordering problem 
>> ntp[date] started before named, so they failed. On all the systems I've 
>> examined, named starts right after SERVERS, and ntpdate right after that. 
>> While there are theoretically good reasons why one might want it the other 
>> way around, I think for the vast majority of our users named should start 
>> first.
>>
>> Any comments, objections?
> 
> Overall, I'd say moving it would be fine.  One concern I might have is
> if named's internal timers are confused by having the clock stepped.
> I'm not enough of a bind expert to have any idea if that's an issue,
> though I suspect there wouldn't be serious problems.

If the name server were acting as a resolver (local and otherwise) and had a 
pending query during a big step it would probably discard the result, but 
the worst that could happen there is a requery. The other case where I could 
think off hand where you'd want ntp to run first is in a situation where 
timestamps on the logs were critical. However, in that scenario the user is 
free to alter the ordering themselves.

Thanks for the feedback,

Doug


-- 

     This .signature sanitized for your protection