Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2003 20:08:35 -0500 From: Dan Nelson <dnelson@allantgroup.com> To: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Time Problem in 5.0 Message-ID: <20030426010835.GB5143@dan.emsphone.com> In-Reply-To: <3EA9D2EC.3040304@potentialtech.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>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20030426010835.GB5143>