On Thu, 09.10.14 12:44, Matthias Clasen (mclasen(a)redhat.com) wrote:
On Thu, 2014-10-09 at 17:46 +0200, Lennart Poettering wrote:
> In general: we try to make timesyncd a good *client* for NTP, and
> focus on that. Unlike ntpd or chrony it will not accept NTP requests,
> it will not contain drivers for hardware clocks. timesyncd is supposed
> to be a generic daemon for everything the 99% of devices that just
> need correct time, and nothing more.
> In this light our plans are actually to add a minimal PTP client as
> well, that is supposed to just work, if PTP is supported on a
> LAN. Also, in contrast to ntpd we really want to make sure to optimize
> timesyncd for power management, and reduce wakeups. In fact, we are
> looking to syncing about the NTP syncs to wakeups of the network hw,
> so that we never end up waking up hardware for the clock.
> So, anyway, I am pretty sure that timesyncd at least in the middle
> term is the way to go for all clients.
The functionality you described sounds 'good enough' for the workstation
use case to me. The one thing that makes me tend towards 'stick with
chrony' for now is the (lack of) dhcp configuration under nm - which is
what we'll have to use for networking on the desktop for the forseeable
NTP servers supplied via DHCP is a nice feature (and as mentioned
works fine between networkd and timesyncd), but then again, it's
actually not very common that DHCP servers supply that information.
Lennart Poettering, Red Hat