Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 13:10:19 -0700 From: Chuck Swiger <cswiger@mac.com> To: Rob <robaree@gmail.com> Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Is OpenNTPD better than the included NTPD? Message-ID: <3106CCC8-D978-4A3A-97CE-DCCDD8C6D089@mac.com> In-Reply-To: <6bcc7a470610111231g67186cc0n687a96bd4d808bb5@mail.gmail.com> References: <6bcc7a470610111231g67186cc0n687a96bd4d808bb5@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Oct 11, 2006, at 12:31 PM, Rob wrote: > I don't plan on allowing anyone to connect to my machine or use it as > a NTPD server. I see that OpenNTPD (OpenBSD's version) by default > doesn't listen on any IP/port and seems a little more secure. OpenNTPD doesn't work-- ie, synchronize your clock-- unless you let it talk to higher-stratum timeservers, or unless you provide a local stratum-1 reference clock via GPS or the like, and provide the "timedelta sensor" that it needs to actually figure out what to do, versus the much more complete refclock support in the official NTPd distribution. > Is this a good one to use over the included one in FreeBSD, or is > there something better? No-- the stock ntpd which ships with FreeBSD works just fine. The experience of people using or offering NTP services for the NTP pool is that OpenNTPD experiences much wider variations from real time (offsets in the hundreds of milliseconds rather than a few to perhaps tens of milliseconds with ntpd). From http:// www.pool.ntp.org/join/configuration.html: "Use the standard ntpd We are all for software diversity, but a significant percentage of the "it's not working" questions that come in are for software other than ntpd. You can use the pool with any program speaking NTP, but if you are going to join the pool we recommend you use ntpd." -- -Chuck
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3106CCC8-D978-4A3A-97CE-DCCDD8C6D089>