[ntp:questions] [ntp:hackers] ntpdate removal is coming
imp at bsdimp.com
Sun Jul 17 21:33:17 UTC 2011
On Jul 17, 2011, at 1:57 PM, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> Dave Hart wrote:
>> After many years of deprecation while still shipping, ntpdate's days
>> as a separate C program are numbered. I want to review alternatives
>> and suggest next steps.
>> First, though, a quick review of why ntpdate is deprecated and will be
>> removed. ntpdate serves two primary purposes today:
>> 1) A diagnostic tool, particularly to help troubleshoot connectivity
>> problems such as those introduced by firewalls. In this role, 4.2.7's
>> sntp provides equivalent capability, including the ability to send
>> queries from the reserved NTP UDP port 123.
>> 2) One-shot clock synchronization, such as before starting
>> step-phobic daemons. In this role, there are a plethora of
>> alternatives, which I will cover below.
> Just to be clear, there *used* to be some reasons to set the clock
> before starting ntpd. In general, there is no need to do this anymore
> and I have not heard any good reasons it should still be needed.
> If anybody knows of any *good* reasons to set the clock before starting
> ntpd, please speak up.
ntpdate was used to get sub-second synchronization at the cost of about a second of delay in startup. ntpd would take a lot longer to do this, and would have problems with steps. Most daemons hate it when time jumps too much, so this was a good compromise. Does ntpd still dial in the frequency error before doing the phase shift that's patently obvious at startup? If so, then there's still a need for ntpdate. ntpd would also used to start asynchronously, meaning that it was a crap shoot if your daemons would see a a big time-step or not after they started.
If these problems have been corrected completely, then maybe ntpdate can be killed. Otherwise, there's still a need for it.
More information about the questions