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