From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Mar 1 7:21:18 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from kci.kciLink.com (kci.kciLink.com [204.117.82.1]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B05437C332 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 07:21:11 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from khera@kciLink.com) Received: from onceler.kcilink.com (onceler.kciLink.com [204.117.82.2]) by kci.kciLink.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02A07E8A4 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:21:07 -0500 (EST) Received: (from khera@localhost) by onceler.kcilink.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) id KAA05999; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:21:06 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from khera@kci.kcilink.com) From: Vivek Khera MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <14525.13666.847921.132509@onceler.kcilink.com> Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 10:21:06 -0500 (EST) To: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: codecrusader and ntp In-Reply-To: <3434.951881284@brown.pfcs.com> References: <3434.951881284@brown.pfcs.com> X-Mailer: VM 6.72 under 21.1 (patch 8) "Bryce Canyon" XEmacs Lucid Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >>>>> "HS" == Harlan Stenn writes: HS> OK, the NTP problem is an old bug that has already been fixed. HS> There was a time in 3-STABLE where some of the time structures went from HS> microseconds to nanoseconds (as I recall). Speaking of which, what's the reason/benefit of using ntp as opposed to the xntpd which is included in the base system of 3.4? Is ntp cleaner/leaner/faster or is it just an alternative that people are used to? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message