[ntp:questions] "ntpd -q" is slow compared to ntpdate
unruh-spam at physics.ubc.ca
Sat Oct 18 06:39:55 UTC 2008
Harlan Stenn <stenn at ntp.org> writes:
>>>> In article <976d969e0810151552y27b51d97p7c44fef03714becf at mail.gmail.com>, extproxy at gmail.com (Mohit Aron) writes:
>>> > Thanks. It seems 'sntp -r <server>' is the appropriate replacement >
>>> for ntpdate.
>>> I'm sure I'm about to soil my shoe in what may be an old and well-trodden
>>> pile, but if sntp can set the time as well and as quickly as ntpdate, why
>>> a new program rather than fixes/enhancements to the old one?
>I thought we answered this already.
>ntpdate is broken, and has been for a very long time.
>Folks have used ntpdate to initially set the time for ntpd.
>This is generally no longer needed.
>for a discussion of the issues.
>Mohit> Good question. I'd much rather just keep using ntpdate. The ntpd man
>Mohit> page is obviously wrong when it suggests that 'ntpd -q' mimics the
>Mohit> behavior of ntpdate - it doesn't - 'ntpd -q' is dog slow. Along comes
>Mohit> 'sntp -r' to the rescue.
>Eventually the ntpd man page will be updated. But for a certain class of
>situation, yes ntpd -q does mimic ntpdate.
>Please remembere that I mentioned that ntpdate is broken and has been for a
It would probably help if you said exactly how ntpdate is broken. It is
obviously not broken so badly that it does not run. So what subtle issues
are there about ntpdate
More information about the questions