On 22.7.2020 20:39, Neal Gompa wrote:
I do not see the benefit of using timesyncd over chrony. Arguably,
chrony is a much better implementation and having a consistent time
server choice across all variants makes life considerably easier for
integration and management.
?
Timesyncd has a smaller foot-print and lower resource requirements, is
part of the system management framework ( already installed ) and serves
I would say majority of usecases out there which makes it a better
distribution default since today distributions need to cater the entire
spectrum ( embedded,cloud, containers, servers, desktop etc. ) and I
think you are mistaken if you think that chrony is being used across all
variants in Fedora ( I suspect that is an exception rather than a rule
these days ).
Given that a distribution that has a larger desktop user base than
Fedora ( Ubuntu ) has had it as it's default for several years now (
since 16.04 ) I cant image why the workstation edition has to be some
sort of odd child in this regard since last time I checked there was not
a single application that came with it that required some sort of
sub-microsecond accurate time to function correctly.
+ I would think that dropping a time snippets into
/etc/systemd/timesyncd.conf.d/sample-ad.conf with something like
[Time]
NTP=DC1.samdom.example.com DC2.samdom.example.com
FallbackNTP=the.same.ntp-server.as.your.dc.points.to
one-extra.ntp-server.as.your.dc.points.to
Or like so per network interface
[Network]
NTP=dc1.samdom.example.com
NTP=dc2.samdom.example.com
Would be a well received administration/infrastructure feature for the
"enterprise" part of the workstation...
JB