[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