From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 14 15:55:53 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EDD316A403 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:55:53 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from pi.codefab.com (pi.codefab.com [199.103.21.227]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1153243D64 for ; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:55:47 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from cswiger@mac.com) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 450B85E1B; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:55:46 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at codefab.com Received: from pi.codefab.com ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (pi.codefab.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lb7dW4spQ7M0; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:55:45 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.3] (pool-68-160-235-217.ny325.east.verizon.net [68.160.235.217]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pi.codefab.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BF4E95C95; Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:55:44 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <443FC606.9010403@mac.com> Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 11:55:50 -0400 From: Chuck Swiger User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5 (Windows/20051201) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: freebsd@dfwlp.com References: <5507.208.11.134.3.1145029242.squirrel@mail.dfwlp.com> In-Reply-To: <5507.208.11.134.3.1145029242.squirrel@mail.dfwlp.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Proper Method of Time Sync? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 Apr 2006 15:55:53 -0000 Jonathan Horne wrote: [ ...ntpdate versus ntpd... ] > so, i have a workstation and a server, which i originally did method 1 on, > but soon enough, time drifted quite a bit. so i switched it to the 2nd > method, and they appear to be sync'd perfectly. a third box i set up, i > did only method 2, and this one did not stay synced at all. after i > manually ran 'ntpdate -v -b us.pool.ntp.org', this box straightend up. > > are both methods required for proper time syncronization, or can one rely > only on the ntpd method? You can use both together quite safely, but usually only the second is needed. If ntpd can't correct the clock by itself, that generally means it's off my more than 2000 seconds or whatever the sanity-check threshold is, and needs a manual correction or one-time use of ntpdate before ntpd will keep things sane from there. -- -Chuck