From owner-freebsd-questions Mon Feb 14 10: 3: 2 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from rover.village.org (rover.village.org [204.144.255.49]) by builder.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6D164D5F; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 10:02:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from harmony.village.org (harmony.village.org [10.0.0.6]) by rover.village.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id LAA64094; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:02:08 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from imp@harmony.village.org) Received: from harmony.village.org (localhost.village.org [127.0.0.1]) by harmony.village.org (8.9.3/8.8.3) with ESMTP id LAA70928; Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:02:12 -0700 (MST) Message-Id: <200002141802.LAA70928@harmony.village.org> To: sobomax@altavista.net Subject: Re: timed/adjtime() on -current Cc: Poul-Henning Kamp , Ben Smithurst , questions@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG In-reply-to: Your message of "Mon, 14 Feb 2000 15:43:19 +0200." <38A80676.DD50DA8D@altavista.net> References: <38A80676.DD50DA8D@altavista.net> <9929.950432964@critter.freebsd.dk> Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2000 11:02:12 -0700 From: Warner Losh Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message <38A80676.DD50DA8D@altavista.net> Maxim Sobolev writes: : Why? As long as the timed is in the base system and serves the basic : need to syncronise time across several machines in the LAN I do not : see any objections to not use it. Its main advantage that it's : permit updating time via ntpdate (the thing that xntpd doesn't allow : to do) which is particularly useful for dial-up connections. ntpdate is not needed when you are running xntpd. That's the point of xntpd, lots of small skews in the frequency of the system rather than jerking the system time around too much. Warner To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message