[ntp:questions] ntpdate works, but ntpd doesn't (reach = 0)

Martin Burnicki martin.burnicki at meinberg.de
Fri Feb 13 11:00:52 UTC 2009

Unruh wrote:

> Harlan Stenn <stenn at ntp.org> writes:
>>>>> In article <ST4ll.11327$Db2.8064 at edtnps83>, Unruh
>>>>> <unruh-spam at physics.ubc.ca> writes:
>>Unruh> Why is -g inappropriate from a resttart. If the clock is still very
>>Unruh> close to right, it will make no difference. If for some reason on
>>Unruh> restart the clock is out, then -g is appropriate. Ie, I cannot see
>>Unruh> why it would hinder anything if it were run on restart.
>>I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
> Repeating yourself is different from explaining yourself. You feel that
> ntpd should have "not -g" as the default. A number of us suggest that -g
> is a more appropriate default (ie so that to stop ntp from doing a time
> reset once would then require some flag).
> You say I can rewrite ntpd, or set up a special ntp.conf file or...
> But I still do not understand why -g should not be the default.

Again, I absolutely agree to the above.

I don't see any restrictions in cases where ntpd is re-(!)started with -g
even though this case is obviously which prevents -g from becoming the

I'd just like to know a condition where -g is Bad in the particular case of
restarting ntpd.

> But I guess it is similar to my not understanding why ntpd uses a very
> simple primative markovian discipline routine, whose answer also seems to
> be "Because".

While I think the former point may be decided by Harlan, the latter is
clearly a decision of Dave Mills.

Martin Burnicki

Meinberg Funkuhren
Bad Pyrmont

More information about the questions mailing list