From owner-freebsd-stable Wed Mar 1 14: 3:32 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from dt051n0b.san.rr.com (dt051n0b.san.rr.com [204.210.32.11]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D184737BAD1 for ; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:03:17 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Received: from slave (doug@slave [10.0.0.1]) by dt051n0b.san.rr.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA59266; Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:03:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Doug@gorean.org) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2000 14:03:12 -0800 (PST) From: Doug Barton X-Sender: doug@dt051n0b.san.rr.com To: Vivek Khera Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: codecrusader and ntp In-Reply-To: <14525.13666.847921.132509@onceler.kcilink.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, 1 Mar 2000, Vivek Khera wrote: > >>>>> "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? 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