Re: [chrony-users] Which command is better to force chrony to synchronize time right now -- chronyc burst or chronyc waitsync?

[Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 08:37:06PM -0400, Rufe Glick wrote:
> > If it's already running and it has some servers configured, an
> > equivalent would be:
> 
> > chronyc -a 'burst 4/4'
> 
> > If you want chronyd to also step the clock instead of slewing if there
> > is a larger offset and chrony.conf doesn't include an unlimited makestep
> > directive, you will also need to wait until the new measurements are
> > made and then tell chronyd to make the step:
> 
> > sleep 10
> > chronyc -a makestep
> 
> > Is this what you are looking for?
> 
> Yes, that seems to be what I was looking for.
> 
> One  follow  up question. Why do you suggest to call 'sleep 10' before
> 'chronyc -a makestep'? What does it do?

The chronyc burst command just initiates the burst, it doesn't wait
for chronyd to complete it. The burst polling interval is 2 seconds
plus the round trip time to the server, so it will need about 6-7
seconds to make the 4 requested measurements.

Maybe we should consider adding a waitburst command to chronyc for
that. Another option would be a new makestep command that doesn't make
the step immediately, but is applied to the future clock updates,
similarly to the makestep directive in chrony.conf.

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

-- 
To unsubscribe email chrony-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
with "unsubscribe" in the subject.
For help email chrony-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
with "help" in the subject.
Trouble?  Email listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.