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

Unruh unruh-spam at physics.ubc.ca
Mon Oct 20 00:00:21 UTC 2008


Harlan Stenn <stenn at ntp.org> writes:

>>>> In article <GmLKk.2567$%%2.1526 at edtnps82>, Unruh <unruh-spam at physics.ubc.ca> writes:

>Unruh> ntpdate serves a useful purpose, something which ntpd -g -q does not
>Unruh> do (because for the purpose of setting the clock in a one-shot
>Unruh> manner, ntpd is seriously flawed, especially if the clock is already
>Unruh> within 128ms of the correct time). Now, sntp should be equally
>Unruh> seriously flawed, since the suggestion in the rfc is that it use the
>Unruh> same algorithm for clock setting as ntp uses I certainly would not
>Unruh> overload the name sntp with yet another operating mode.

>It's comments like this that cause me to wonder if you are just being a
>troll, and to wonder if I should invest effort in responding.

>I certainly wonder what your goal is by writing things like this.

My goal is as a user to provide some input into ntp to make it better. 
Using sntp as a name is not a good idea. I got very confused when I
originally thought that sntp was a client only protocol. Then I discovered
that it was both a client only protocol AND an atomic clock server
proptocol. And now it is the name of "set the clock once and quickly"
program as well. 
That stikes me as a mess. Maybe it stikes noone else as a mess which is
fine. But as I found from my acting as a sysadmin, if noone complains, I
have no idea what stupidities I have institututed, or where things are
broken.




More information about the questions mailing list