Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2015 11:03:58 -0600 From: Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> To: Dmitry Morozovsky <marck@rinet.ru> Cc: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@freebsd.org>, svn-src-all@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, svn-src-vendor@freebsd.org Subject: Re: svn commit: r290010 - vendor/ntp Message-ID: <1445965438.91534.97.camel@freebsd.org> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1510271944360.95962@woozle.rinet.ru> References: <201510261538.t9QFcwog014561@repo.freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1510271739140.95962@woozle.rinet.ru> <1445960773.91534.89.camel@freebsd.org> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1510271944360.95962@woozle.rinet.ru>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2015-10-27 at 19:45 +0300, Dmitry Morozovsky wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2015, Ian Lepore wrote: > > > > > Log: > > > > Document NTP import procedure, using experience from the last > > > one. > > > > > > BTW: > > > > > > marck@freefall:~> ntpq -c pe > > > remote refid st t when poll reach delay > > > offset jitter > > > > ===================================================================== > > > ========= > > > +ntp0.ysv.freebs 95.87.161.134 4 u 296 1024 377 0.422 > > > -0.620 0.598 > > > *ntp1.ysv.freebs 39.86.174.157 3 u 443 1024 377 0.405 > > > 0.904 0.239 > > > +ntp2.ysv.freebs 65.182.224.39 3 u 617 1024 377 0.434 > > > 1.225 1.014 > > > marck@freefall:~> ntpdc -c pe > > > localhost: timed out, nothing received > > > ***Request timed out > > > > > > I did not bisect to find when this brokes, but it is for quite > some > > > time. > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > That's not broken, it's a "feature" of the newer ntpd. The ntpd > folks > > decided to stop supporting the old mode-7 control packets because > they > > say the mode-6 packets used by ntpq can do everything necessary. > That > > means we all have to learn some new commands within ntpq to get the > > info and controls we're used to with ntpdc. There are things I'm > used > > to doing with ntpdc that I haven't figured out how to do with ntpq > yet, > > foremost being 'addserver'. > > well, why not to exclude ntpdc from building then? A least for 11.* > I think it's because you may be running on 10-stable or 11 but still need to administer downrev ntpd running on 8.2 or whatever, so you would still need ntpdc to talk to those. Note that this is speculation... I don't know for sure that they had to add anything to ntpd itself to help ntpq take over all the functionality of ntpdc. -- Ian
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1445965438.91534.97.camel>