Harlan Stenn wrote: >>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >
> David> I'm not convinced that SNTP will displace ntpdate for this purpose. > > Why not? Because ntpdate is fixed in the popular culture and, for the ordinary user, SNTP doesn't offer any obvious advantages. > > If you want to get the time set *now* and then start, regardless of how well > the system can maintain that time, we can do that (sntp/ntpdate+ntpd). Not in Dave Mills future of ntpd, as you don't get ntpdate or SNTP. > > If you want to set the time ASAP and have stable system time before starting > your apps, in the usual case you are talking about 11 seconds for this to > happen (ntpd -g, with iburst, early in the boot sequence, using ntp-wait > later in the boot sequence, just before starting time-critical services). I suspect that only sets the time to the nearest 128ms, unless it does something that ntpd doesn't normally do. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
