On 23.7.2020 19:00, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Thu, 2020-07-23 at 02:37 +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
> On 23.7.2020 01:07, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> On Wed, 2020-07-22 at 23:07 +0000, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote:
>>> 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 ).
>> It's in at least the Cloud base image, KDE live install, Server DVD
>> install, Silverblue DVD install and Workstation live install.
>
> So it's not on IoT and CoreOS which also means we already have
> experience of running timesyncd instead of Chrony in the distribution
> which is good.
I said "at least". I don't know either way about those. I'm not clear
if your mail is saying you do, or you're assuming my leaving them out
of the list meant I knew for sure they used something else, which would
not be a correct interpretation.
I assumed you leaving them out meant for sure they used something else I
hence stand corrected.
JBG