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

Mohit Aron extproxy at gmail.com
Sun Oct 19 19:47:31 UTC 2008


>
>
>
> The best solution to this mess was to deprecate ntpdate, once there was a
> way to provide all of the intended *and assumed* functionality of ntpdate
> by
> some other way.
>
> The first set was removing the need to set the time with ntpdate before
> starting ntpd.  The solution to this problem is -g, and perhaps calling
> ntp-wait (which actually implemented a missing feature that had been needed
> before).
>


I don't think '-g' option to ntpd is a practical solution - since it takes
way too long to set the local time. Given this, people will continue to use
ntpdate or sntp to set the time in a one-shot way before actually running
ntpd.



> There will be a script called "ntpdate" for those folks who want to keep
> running a program by that name.
>


That will be great. It'll also be super if the ntpd man page can be fixed so
it doesn't say ntpdate is to be retired and that 'ntpd -q' is an alternative
to using ntpdate. This is spreading a lot of misinformation and causing
waste of time. My company changed all the configs in our product to use
'ntpd -q', only to realize the hard way that it is way slower than 'ntpdate'
and then we had to revert back.



- Mohit



More information about the questions mailing list