Re: executing ntpdate on boot - seems it doesn't work
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Rolf Bode-Meyer wrote:
> Hi!
Hi,
> I currently try to figure out if ntpdate is called on boottime in my
> system or not.
>
> It *should* be called when the network interfaces come up (ifup),
> therefore the /etc/network/if-up.d/ntpdate is present. And it's indeed
> called when I manually call ifup -a after booting--an entry in the
> syslog then shows something like "adjust time server ... offset ...".
> But I don't see such a syslog entry for boottime, so I fear there's
> something wrong. Any ideas what that could be or how to be sure
> everything is ok?
>
If it manually works, maybe you can add more lines to your
/etc/network/if-up/ntpdate file in order to track down where the
probleme comes from.
>
> And another oddity: ifup is called by the network script which is
> rcS.d/S40networking. So if everything works well, ntpdate sets the
> system clock at S40. But *after* that S50hwclock.sh calls hwclock
> --hctosys which sets the system clock to the hardware clock.
> So doesn't hwclock needs to be called before ntpdate?
>
According to me you are right, hwclock should be start before ntpdate,
since ntpdate sets the system clock, and as you said, hwclock sets the
hardware clock from the system clock. It would be odd to do it in a
different way. I have checked my rcS.d directory, and I have :
S11hwclock and S40networking.
- --
Franck Joncourt
http://www.debian.org
http://smhteam.info/wiki/
GPG server : pgpkeys.mit.edu
Fingerprint : C10E D1D0 EF70 0A2A CACF 9A3C C490 534E 75C0 89FE
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFF14LbxJBTTnXAif4RAl4FAJ9a5XpFDvqboZz89ealqDyOlqJQGgCdGayB
1RSJwf8D8m/qbATdNpQIU9c=
=wAzo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
___________________________________________________________
All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine
http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
Reply to: