[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

> 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