From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Fri Apr 25 18:08:38 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 DD4A137B401 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:08:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from dan.emsphone.com (dan.emsphone.com [199.67.51.101]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C26CF43F93 for ; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 18:08:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@dan.emsphone.com) Received: (from dan@localhost) by dan.emsphone.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) id h3Q18ZBv029242; Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:08:35 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from dan) Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:08:35 -0500 From: Dan Nelson To: Bill Moran Message-ID: <20030426010835.GB5143@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> <3EA9D2EC.3040304@potentialtech.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EA9D2EC.3040304@potentialtech.com> X-OS: FreeBSD 5.0-CURRENT X-message-flag: Outlook Error User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i 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: Sat, 26 Apr 2003 01:08:39 -0000 In the last episode (Apr 25), Bill Moran said: > 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. During the boot process I could care less if I'm a half-second off. I'd rather not be an hour or a day off, though. I just want ntpdate to give me a reasonable clock for 5 minutes until ntpd gets itself synched. An unreliable hack is perfect. -- Dan Nelson dnelson@allantgroup.com