Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 13:52:21 +0000 (UTC) From: Christian Weisgerber <naddy@mips.inka.de> To: freebsd-security@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD Security Advisory FreeBSD-SA-16:16.ntp Message-ID: <slrnni9e4l.27hm.naddy@lorvorc.mips.inka.de> References: <20160429082953.DB31D1769@freefall.freebsd.org> <9e6342a420259fec7bd21d6222cc6e05@zahemszky.hu> <1461929003.67736.2.camel@yandex.com> <CINIP100NTSBSRqf69a0000002a@cinip100ntsbs.irtnog.net> <BABF8C57A778F04791343E5601659908237051@cinip100ntsbs.irtnog.net> <201604300015.u3U0FB3k058050@lorvorc.mips.inka.de>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2016-04-29, Roger Marquis <marquis@roble.com> wrote: >> While I cannot speak for anyone other than myself, the two simply aren't >> equivalent. As a conscious design choice, OpenNTPD trades off accuracy >> for code simplicity. > > IIRC openntpd is accurate down to ~100ms. I have no idea where you get that absurd number from. OpenNTPD is accurate at least down to 1 ms. I don't have better time sources. $ ntpctl -sa 1/1 peers valid, clock synced, stratum 2 peer wt tl st next poll offset delay jitter 2001:6f8:124a::8 ntp * 1 10 1 250s 1506s -0.193ms 0.493ms 0.067ms -- Christian "naddy" Weisgerber naddy@mips.inka.de
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?slrnni9e4l.27hm.naddy>