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

Harlan Stenn stenn at ntp.org
Mon Oct 20 01:50:48 UTC 2008


>>> In article <7yPKk.2607$%%2.442 at edtnps82>, Unruh <unruh-spam at physics.ubc.ca> writes:

Unruh> David Woolley <david at ex.djwhome.demon.co.uk.invalid> writes:
>> You didn't read what I wrote.  I said that the meaning of sntp in this
>> context was a program that was a minimal SNTP implementation (it performs
>> a single exchange with a single server).

Unruh> I did read it and am objecting to using the program name sntp to
Unruh> refer to something different from what the rfc says sntp is.

By my read and understanding of the RFC, SNTP as a protocol is designed to
be used to set the time once, quickly, and ordinarily would not have an
attached refclock (and therefore would not be a long-running daemon).

Therefore, 'sntp' seems to me to be a perfectly good name for a program that
does the work David describes.

It also matches what has been implemented.

I seem to be missing something you are seeing - what do you think the RFC
expects from an SNTP implementation?  I'm talking about a client-only
implementation, not a barebones "I'm talking to a refclock and will answer
NTP queries" server.

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




More information about the questions mailing list