Time Problem in 5.0

Dan Nelson dnelson at allantgroup.com
Fri Apr 25 18:08:39 PDT 2003

In the last episode (Apr 25), Bill Moran said:
> Dan Nelson wrote:
> >In the last episode (Apr 25), Bill Moran said:
> >>I'm going to repeat myself here: ntpdate is depreciated.  The
> >>functionality in it is duplicated by ntpd. It shouldn't even be in
> >>the 5.0 tree.  I'm considering filing a pr to request that it be
> >>removed.  Opinions?
> >
> >ntpdate has two nice features:
> >
> >1 - It runs in under a second.  This is useful during the startup
> >    sequence, so you know all of your daemons come up with the right
> >    time.  "ntpd -q" took 3 and 5 1/2 minutes to return my prompt on
> >    tests on two different machines.
> That's because ntpdate is an unreliable hack of the ntp system.  Read
> some of these docs on reliable time-keeping any you'll understand why
> ntpd takes so long, even with -q:
> http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~ntp/ntpfaq/NTP-a-faq.htm The use of a
> single NTP server is never considered a good idea.

During the boot process I could care less if I'm a half-second off. 
I'd rather not be an hour or a day off, though.  I just want ntpdate to
give me a reasonable clock for 5 minutes until ntpd gets itself
synched.  An unreliable hack is perfect.

	Dan Nelson
	dnelson at allantgroup.com

More information about the freebsd-questions mailing list