Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:29:32 -0400 From: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> To: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time Problem in 5.0 Message-ID: <3EA9D2EC.3040304@potentialtech.com> In-Reply-To: <20030425203301.GU45035@dan.emsphone.com> References: <20030424214413.GC90097@grimoire.chen.org.nz> <20030425091950.GA558@dhumketu.homeunix.net> <3EA92FF1.30809@potentialtech.com> <20030425184813.GA674@dhumketu.homeunix.net> <448ytye5xj.fsf@be-well.ilk.org> <3EA9925E.30201@potentialtech.com> <20030425203301.GU45035@dan.emsphone.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Dan Nelson wrote: > In the last episode (Apr 25), Bill Moran said: > >>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? > > ntpdate has two nice features: > > 1 - It runs in under a second. This is useful during the startup > sequence, so you know all of your daemons come up with the right > time. "ntpd -q" took 3 and 5 1/2 minutes to return my prompt on > tests on two different machines. That's because ntpdate is an unreliable hack of the ntp system. Read some of these docs on reliable time-keeping any you'll understand why ntpd takes so long, even with -q: http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~ntp/ntpfaq/NTP-a-faq.htm The use of a single NTP server is never considered a good idea. > 2 - It accepts IP numbers on the commandline, so you don't need a > config file to just get your time synched while you're setting a > machine up or just want to test. That's a nice feature, I'll warrant. But it's hardly a show-stopper. -- Bill Moran Potential Technologies http://www.potentialtech.com
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3EA9D2EC.3040304>