From owner-freebsd-stable Wed May 17 13:18:31 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from alcanet.com.au (mail.alcanet.com.au [203.62.196.10]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E10C37BCEE for ; Wed, 17 May 2000 13:18:21 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from jeremyp@pc0640.alcatel.com.au) Received: by border.alcanet.com.au id <115213>; Thu, 18 May 2000 06:18:29 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy Subject: Re: Flag for NTP slew only? In-reply-to: <9760.958147629@brown.pfcs.com>; from Harlan.Stenn@pfcs.com on Sat, May 13, 2000 at 02:10:49AM +1000 To: Harlan Stenn Cc: freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.org Message-Id: <00May18.061829est.115213@border.alcanet.com.au> MIME-version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Mutt 1.0i Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <9760.958147629@brown.pfcs.com> Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 06:18:28 +1000 Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Sat, May 13, 2000 at 02:10:49AM +1000, Harlan Stenn wrote: >I believe ntpdate will not be around for much longer I'm intrigued by this comment. The [x]ntp documentation has traditionally listed two major uses for ntpdate: 1) "ntpdate -b" early in the boot process to get the system clock almost right - avoiding xntpd's fairly slow lock-in time and ensuring that there's no need for a time step once the system is running. ntpd may synchronise much faster than xntpd did, but the system will still be well into multi-user mode before it realises that the clock needs to be stepped by a (possible significant) amount. 2) Regular use of ntpdate (eg from cron) to keep the system clock fairly close to real time without the overheads of permanently running nptd. Whilst this is less of an issue for modern systems, people may still have reasons for not wanting to run ntpd. How will these functions be handled in the absence of ntpdate? Peter To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message