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

David Woolley david at ex.djwhome.demon.co.uk.invalid
Sun Oct 19 17:48:40 UTC 2008

Unruh wrote:
> David Woolley <david at ex.djwhome.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes:

>> The argument there seems to be not that ntpdate is worse than SNTP, but 
>> that there is an implied promise that it is almost as good as ntpd.  The 
>> reason for having SNTP is to have something which has no pretensions of 
>> being anything other than crude.
> ??? The rfc on sntp seems to say that sntp should be just as good as ntp in
> disciplining a local clock, it just should not be used as a server (

The article wasn't talking about SNTP in general (which basically covers 
anything, other than NTP, using the NTP wire formats), but rather about 
the minimal SNTP implementation that should be included in the reference 
implementation package.

More information about the questions mailing list