[ntp:questions] Speed of ntp convergence

Unruh unruh-spam at physics.ubc.ca
Mon Nov 3 23:10:26 UTC 2008


"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net> writes:

>David Woolley wrote:
>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>> Your opinion!  The designers/developers evidently disagree.
>> 
>> Designer, singular, as far as these issues are concerned.
>> 
>> At least two new people have disagreed with the designer, recently, on 
>> the newsgroup, and decided that NTP is unsuitable for their application 
>> because of its poor startup behaviour.

>Ntpd was not intended to be bounced up and down like a basketball and I 
>doubt very much that startup speed was a design consideration.  As my 
>systems tend to run for months between reboots, the startup behavior of 
>ntpd is not terribly important to me.

>If, for some reason, you must reboot your systems daily and you need an 
>accurate clock within seconds of booting, you will just have to find a 
>tool better suited to the job than ntpd.

Of course that is an option. However surely another option is to try to get
ntp to start up faster-- ntp is not a force of nature, which you either
accept or reject ( like gravity say) but is a piece of software written by
people which can be changed, and whose design goals can be influenced. IF
the startup behaviour of ntp were crucial to its successful operation, then
you are right, we would simply have to accept its behaviour. But I at least
do not think it is critical to its successful operation.
Many features have been added to ntp over the years, and they occured
because users requested certain features, or the designers decided they
would be a good idea. 




More information about the questions mailing list