🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1992Dec18.175438.16954@Arco.COM> Matt Mannhardt <lasmtm@Arco.COM> writes:
| >We are currently using <timed> on our (still little,
| >but growing) network. We are planning to start to use 
| >xntpd.
| >
| >May I suppose that I have to stop timed on all the machines
| >where I'm going to start xntpd? May they coexist in some way?
| 
| I have been looking into this question myself because of being in a
| sum-what
| similar position and I am interested in other peoples experiences.  We
| have a 

[ etc. ]

| The end result is that I'll probably run a mix of 'timed' and 'xntp' with
| new installs
| going to 'xntp' (by adding the appropiate code to our "localization
| scripts" that we
| run for new installs) and leaving the current 'timed' clients as they are
| till their
| next OS upgrade.
| 
| Comments anyone?

We use both ntpd (v1) and timed on a mixed network (Sun, Pyramid,
Convex, Apollo, DEC).  Pyramid and Apollo ship timed, Sun ships
nothing, I'm not sure what we did to the DEC.  We compiled and run
ntpd on a small number of Suns, each with some contact off-campus and
communicating with each other on-campus.  Each ntpd machine is also a
potential timed master (started with -M option).  But we compiled for
these machines a version of timed that does not alter the master's
clock.  So on these machines, ntp makes the decisions.  The other
machines, which don't run ntpd, all run timed in slave mode.  It seems
to work well.  Part of the reason for doing this was that ntpd
required a configuration file on each host; I should check out a newer
version of xntp which apparently does not require this.

-- Christopher