Bug#1028149: bookworm: ntp has been replaced by ntpsec
On 2023-03-27 11:15:20, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2023 12:12:04 +0000 Richard Lewis <richard.lewis.debian@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> Presumably the release notes should also say that most people should
>> consider systemd-timesyncd as this is priority:standard (since at
>> least buster, but i dont remember seeing this in release notes then)?
>> - i assume the idea is that if you dont have any special needs beyond
>> "set the clock" should use systemd-timesyncd, And people who need
>> extra features (like running their own ntp server) should install
>> ntpsec / chrony / opennntpd ?
>
> Recommending timesyncd as an NTP client to replace ntpd would not be a
> good idea, especially if you consider the default configuration using
> servers from pool.ntp.org.
>
> The pool is very robust as a whole, but individual servers cannot be
> relied on. They are run by volunteers. Some are well maintained, some
> are not. Occasionally, servers drift away or step to a distant past or
> future, e.g. due to GPS firmware bugs. The pool monitoring system
> detects such servers and quickly removes them from the pool DNS, but
> simple clients like timesyncd cannot recover from that. Once they got
> the address from DNS, they will follow the server for as long as it
> claims to be synchronized, no matter how wrong it is. A full-featured
> NTP client is needed to detect and replace falsetickers. With
> timesyncd the only option is to restart the service when you notice
> the clock is wrong. I've seen many times users complaining about that
> and getting this advice over the years.
>
> timesyncd needs to be configured with a reliable server to work well.
> Canonical maintains their own NTP servers and uses them by default in
> Ubuntu. That makes senses. Debian uses pool.ntp.org, so it should
> recommend a proper NTP client for a reliable service.
It seems to me this should be reported as a bug against the
systemd-timesyncd package, at the very least.
Right now this is completely empty:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?pkg=systemd-timesyncd;dist=unstable
Now I agree that timesyncd might not be the best default NTP server: my
vote goes for chrony, personnally. But if we're going to object to it,
it should be at least properly documented in that package's bug list...
(To be fair, there *were* bugs reported agains the package before:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?archive=both;dist=unstable;package=systemd-timesyncd
... just not this specific one.)
a.
--
Si l'image donne l'illusion de savoir
C'est que l'adage pretend que pour croire,
L'important ne serait que de voir
- Lofofora
Reply to: