Unruh wrote: > David Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Unruh wrote: >>> David Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >>>> The argument there seems to be not that ntpdate is worse than SNTP, but >>>> that there is an implied promise that it is almost as good as ntpd. The >>>> reason for having SNTP is to have something which has no pretensions of >>>> being anything other than crude. >>> ??? The rfc on sntp seems to say that sntp should be just as good as ntp in >>> disciplining a local clock, it just should not be used as a server ( > >> The article wasn't talking about SNTP in general (which basically covers >> anything, other than NTP, using the NTP wire formats), but rather about >> the minimal SNTP implementation that should be included in the reference >> implementation package. > > I would think that something called sntp, which as you say "which basically > covers anything, other than NTP, using the NTP wire formats" would hold out
You didn't read what I wrote. I said that the meaning of sntp in this context was a program that was a minimal SNTP implementation (it performs a single exchange with a single server). > far more promise of being "almost as good as ntpd" than does a program called > ntpdate > (based on rdate) whose only purpose is to use the ntp wire protocol to set > the time. > > Ie, I do not believe that anyone thinks that ntpdate is as good as ntp ( > although claims that you could run ntpdate every hour from a cron job as an > alternative to ntpd may convey that impression-- but that would also be > true of sntp). > > ntpdate serves a useful purpose, something which ntpd -g -q does not do > (because for the purpose of setting the clock in a one-shot manner, ntpd is > seriously flawed, especially if the clock is already within 128ms of the > correct time). Now, sntp should be equally seriously flawed, since the > suggestion in the rfc is that it use the same algorithm for clock setting as > ntp uses > I certainly would not overload the name sntp with yet another operating > mode. (sntp should not be used as a server, unless sntp is fed by a > hardware clock, in which case it can be. Now in addition-- sntp should > discipline the phase and frequency of the clock, unless it is used in a > oneshot manner when it should discipline only the phase.) I think it is far > better to have something called ntpdate to act in a oneshot manner, and be > clear that that is all that it is for, than to overload a name like sntp > with all kinds of incompatible operating modes. > _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
