Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Post release 10: Remove zone-specific server lines from internal NTP chrony config #6261

Closed
jgallagher opened this issue Aug 7, 2024 · 0 comments · Fixed by #6657
Closed
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@jgallagher
Copy link
Contributor

#6050 introduces a new boundary-ntp.control-plane.oxide.internal DNS name which resolves to "all the current boundary NTP zones" and adds it to the internal NTP chrony config, but does not remove the current zone-specific server lines like:

server 1f092e4c-eac5-408e-b421-a6b3ba8d2ce7.host.control-plane.oxide.internal iburst minpoll 0 maxpoll 4
server 6effe156-cc36-486f-82ac-2333a2fe9d87.host.control-plane.oxide.internal iburst minpoll 0 maxpoll 4

(because doing so would break NTP during the upgrade to R10). Once R10 is out the door and we know that every rack has this DNS name (which requires briefly enabling the reconfigurator system to create it), we should go back and remove these server-specific lines.

@davepacheco davepacheco added this to the 11 milestone Aug 8, 2024
@jgallagher jgallagher self-assigned this Sep 17, 2024
jgallagher added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 23, 2024
Release 10 set up the `boundary-ntp.control-plane.oxide.internal` DNS
name. Now that it is out the door, we no longer need to configure each
internal NTP zone with the explicit names of each boundary NTP server.

Closes #6261.
jgallagher added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 24, 2024
Release 10 set up the `boundary-ntp.control-plane.oxide.internal` DNS
name. Now that it is out the door, we no longer need to configure each
internal NTP zone with the explicit names of each boundary NTP server.

Closes #6261.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants