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

Rick Jones rick.jones2 at hp.com
Thu Oct 16 18:12:40 UTC 2008

Harlan Stenn <stenn at ntp.org> wrote:
> It seems to me a topic related to initially getting the time set on
> a box is the ability to determine the 'synchronization status' of
> ntpd.

> Toward that end, http://support.ntp.org/bin/view/Dev/NtpdsSyncStatus
> has been created.

> I'd appreciate folks taking a look at that page, commenting and
> discussing the issues.

 The definition of 'correct' time

How about the following:

    * The decoded system status bits contain sync_ntp
    * (obsolete) ntpd is in state S_SYNC (which Dave is renaming to EVNT_SYNC)
    * any slew adjustment in-process is under X (where X is configurable) 

    * Do we care about the root dispersion? 

If this is in the context of a quick, initial time setting I would
wonder if I (for some number of I's) "really" care if none of the time
sources I ask aren't yet synced?  I'm wondering if being set to a time
close to that of an unsynced server above me in the tree is better
than no time setting at all.

rick jones
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
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