Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:53:31 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Preventing ntpd from adjusting time (backwards) Message-ID: <20090421215331.1621a96e@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <200904212023.14365.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> References: <200904211106.01965.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> <200904211643.32448.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> <20090421183133.4e0c414f@gumby.homeunix.com> <200904212023.14365.mel.flynn%2Bfbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 20:23:14 +0200 Mel Flynn <mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> wrote: > On Tuesday 21 April 2009 19:31:33 RW wrote: > > On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:43:32 +0200 > > > > Mel Flynn <mel.flynn+fbsd.questions@mailing.thruhere.net> wrote: > > > On Tuesday 21 April 2009 16:20:52 RW wrote: > > > > The bottom line though, is that ntpdate_enable=yes solves the > > > > problem entirely, since the real problem is not the step, but > > > > the fact that it happens in the background, and after a delay. > > > > > > Care to expand on that? Dovecot won't stop if root issues a date > > > command that sets time to the past, for example? > > > > I was assuming that since you're running ntpd you wouldn't be doing > > that. > > Right, then this works because ntpdate is started before dovecot in > rcorder, like Tim Judd said else in thread. ntpdate and ntpd normally start consecutively, both way before Dovecot. The difference is that ntpdate runs in the foreground, blocking the boot-process for a fraction of a second, but ntpd forks-off into the background and takes a lot longer over making its initial correction. If you're dead set against using ntpdate, you could use the preferred ntpd -gnq in it's place, at the expense of about 10 seconds of extra boot time.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20090421215331.1621a96e>