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

Unruh unruh-spam at physics.ubc.ca
Sun Oct 19 17:25:35 UTC 2008

Harlan Stenn <stenn at ntp.org> writes:

>>>> In article <GQoKk.2334$%%2.337 at edtnps82>, Unruh <unruh-spam at physics.ubc.ca> writes:

>Unruh> But with ntpdate, the server is under your control. So this is hardly
>Unruh> something I would call "broken".  Harlan insists that it is broken--
>Unruh> mentioned it twice-- but never said how and why it is broken. What he
>Unruh> calls broken may be a feature other people never use.


>As a troll attempt, that was pretty lame.  And there are enough trolls.

It was NOT a troll attempt. It was an attempt to learn what you consider
the flaws in ntpdate are, so that users can make up their own mind whether
or not to use it. I understand that there is a long long long running
desire to get rid of it ( which has apparently failed), but I do not
understand what the flaws are. 

>Believe me or not, your choice.

I thought were were talking about facts, not beliefs. 

>I recommend searching the archives - the status of ntpdate is pretty old
>news, and predates the support twiki (as I recall), and the decision to
>deprecate ntpdate may even predate our use of bugzilla.

Yes, it is old, and has apparently failed to have any effect. ntpdate is
still there, and thousands still rely on it. 

>I'm probably done with this thread. 

Ok, that is of course your choice. I would still like to know what the
flaws are.

>Harlan Stenn <stenn at ntp.org>
>http://ntpforum.isc.org  - be a member!

More information about the questions mailing list