[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  "Michael Mee" <mm2001 at pobox dot com>
 To:  "Bart Smit" <bit at signature dot nl>
 Cc:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Re: time client/server proposal - comments please
 Date:  Tue, 17 Jun 2003 11:24:32 -0700
Good points!  I guess the size issue was pushing me towards msntp - 38k vs
228k for ntpd.

Apart from size it doesn't make _too_ much difference which one we choose
initially. Msntp has so few requirements (no config files etc) vs ntpd that
we can treat it as a first step and replace it with ntpd later.

> I take this to mean that synchronizing to a remote server
> over a probably bandwidth-starved home cable or adsl link
> is not really msntp's league.

The way I read it, msntp will be just fine for a typical DSL/cable (or even
modem) connection where the time requirements are not stringent - i.e. with
a hundred milliseconds or so (and usually much better).

Yes, having a self-peered group of Soekris boxes would be problemmatic.
Yes, it would impossible to run standalone with a local reference source.

I guess the question becomes what is the typical m0n0wall user? Or is there
even a typical user?  Which leads us down the path of installable
packages... Hmm, if we could store optional packages on the CF card and only
copy what was selected for a given need, could we have it both ways (leaving
aside the tedium of keeping the php scripts in order!)

I'm going to push ahead with msntp for now, but I'll leave the door wide
open for ntpd (and its companion utilities) in case a consensus devlops
around them.

cheers, michael