[ntp:questions] "ntpd -q" is slow compared to ntpdate

Rick Jones rick.jones2 at hp.com
Wed Oct 15 01:24:45 UTC 2008


Garrett Wollman <wollman at bimajority.org> wrote:
> If you care about having reasonably correct timestamps in your logs,
> you need to get a reasonably correct time established at boot time
> before anything important starts. 

Would it be fair to say that "today" anyway, having the time be within
a (large fraction of a) second (IIRC that is the precision of most
system logs still today?) be sufficient?

> Once the system time is validated, the rest of the system may be
> permitted to start, possibly including a long-running ntpd.  You
> don't want that initial step happening after anything else has been
> started, and the only way to convey this information to traditional
> /etc/rc scripts is to have the program exit.

And people (not just performance geeks :) are indeed concerned about
the speed at which a system is up and running.  Adding minutes to that
is right out.  Where in the realm of added seconds things are is a
very fertile area for discussion.

> That is how most systems use ntpdate(1) now, and that is why
> distributors are so resistant to change (the well-known problems of
> ntpdate notwithstanding).

> What they probably actually want is a flag that says "delay
> daemonizing until the first time the clock is set".

But still want things to happen "quickly" for some relative definition
of quickly that probably does not encompass the length of time most
(and I do  mean the term affectionately) time geeks would wait.

rick jones
-- 
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought. 
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...




More information about the questions mailing list