Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:03:12 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton <Doug@gorean.org> To: Vivek Khera <khera@kciLink.com> Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: codecrusader and ntp Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0003011400440.59186-100000@dt051n0b.san.rr.com> In-Reply-To: <14525.13666.847921.132509@onceler.kcilink.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Vivek Khera wrote:
> >>>>> "HS" == Harlan Stenn <Harlan.Stenn@pfcs.com> 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?
The xntpd in the freebsd tree is ancient. Even the latest release
of xntpd is more efficient. The ntp code keeps your clock synched closer
and uses less cpu than even the latest xntpd. If you are not doing
sub-second timing operations and your system is not cpu bound you probably
won't notice any differences.
Doug
--
"Welcome to the desert of the real."
- Laurence Fishburne as Morpheus, "The Matrix"
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.4.21.0003011400440.59186-100000>