On 23.7.2020 12:04, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Wed, Jul 22, 2020 at 10:37 PM Jóhann B. Guðmundsson johannbg@gmail.com wrote:
And realistically speaking the use case for Chrony basically are that you are either running an ntp server or in an IT environment which requires sub-microsecond accurate time ( for example infrastructure at the size of FB ), environment's in which Fedora is seldom run in.
I take offense to that as someone who runs and helps support Fedora at my workplace. And I imagine so would Facebook, considering they talked about their very large footprint of Fedora at Flock last year. And as Fedora gets preloaded on laptops that businesses buy, it's entirely possible that usage will continue to rise.
I myself have built proper Fedora stratum 0 server and I'm not talking about some glued together sbc, It costs around $4k and is better and cheaper than some master clock that's insecure and EOL's and deployed that stratum server in datacenter however all the Fedora host that synced time with it used timesyncd.
What I was referring to was that the environment in which the benefits that chrony provides over timesynd are used are few and far between ( It's an exception rather than a rule ). Those environment typically call for you to use something like RHEL instead. I was not saying that Fedora was not being deployed in a large scale in environments or did not exist in those in the first place.
In anycase regardless of what you might feel the majority of Fedora's user base is not running their own ntp server or requiring sub-microsecond accuracy right and there is nothing in the workstation that requires it and highly unlikely that there ever will be such an requirement for a desktop. Chrony does not come configured to support those specific features out of the box in which the administrator could just as well install it since he needs to configure it in the first place, to take advantage of those feature it has over timesyncd and something that is already install and available ( timesyncd ) used instead.
JBG