From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 25 14:05:17 2003 Return-Path: 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 6289637B401 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:05:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01.attbi.com [204.127.202.61]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7D8BC43FBD for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:05:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from freebsduser@attbi.com) Received: from attbi.com (12-225-141-88.client.attbi.com[12.225.141.88]) by sccrmhc01.attbi.com (sccrmhc01) with SMTP id <2003042521051500100e5e96e>; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 21:05:15 +0000 Message-ID: <3EA9A309.5030107@attbi.com> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 14:05:13 -0700 From: K Anderson User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i386; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Lord Sith References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time Problem in 5.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 21:05:17 -0000 Lord Sith wrote: >> From: Bill Moran >> To: Lowell Gilbert >> CC: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org >> Subject: Re: Time Problem in 5.0 >> Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 15:54:06 -0400 >> >> Lowell Gilbert wrote: >> >>> Shantanu Mahajan writes: >>> >>>> | Also, ntpdate is depreciated. You should be using ntpd with the >>>> | proper switches/configuration. >>>> ntpdate was working *perfectly* with >>>> 4.7R,4.8-Stable. >>> >>> >>> >>> So? That's a significantly different version. >>> >>> Are you *sure* you want to be running 5.0? It doesn't sound like >>> you're much of a debugger yourself, and it's not >>> as though 5.x is recommended for anybody else yet... >> >> >> I'm going to repeat myself here: >> ntpdate is depreciated. The functionality in it is duplicated by ntpd. >> It shouldn't even be in the 5.0 tree. I'm considering filing a pr to >> request that it be removed. Opinions? >> >> -- >> Bill Moran >> Potential Technologies >> http://www.potentialtech.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list >> http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions >> To unsubscribe, send any mail to >> "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > ntpd only claims to >mimic ntpdate in functionality. > > I'm not excited about the prospect of having another daemon running with > root priveldges on a known port for something that only needs to be run > maybe two or three times a day. > > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus > > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to > "freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > From ntpd's man page - In some cases it may not be practical for ntpd to run continuously. A common workaround has been to run the ntpdate(8) program from a cron(8) job at designated times. However, this program does not have the crafted signal processing, error checking and mitigation algorithms of ntpd. The -q option is intended for this purpose. Setting this option will cause ntpd to exit just after setting the clock for the first time. The proce-dure for initially setting the clock is the same as in continuous mode; most applications will probably want to specify the iburst keyword with the server configuration command. With this keyword a volley of messages are exchanged to groom the data and the clock is set in about a minute. If nothing is heard after a couple of minutes, the daemon times out and exits. After a suitable period of mourning, the ntpdate(8) program may be retired. There's more, so take a look at it. And if you're worried about an open port while ntpd is doing it's thing then create a firewall rule to block incoming requests or determine how you can get ntpd to listen only on localhost or something. Problem solved.