On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 02:46:28PM -0000, David J Taylor wrote: > >Even when completely idle, ntpd wakes up every second and does quite a > >lot (updating timers, scanning the peer hash table, etc). I'd say that > >starting ntpd two times per day will take much less resources than > >running it continuosly. > > Have you ever measured the resources used by ntpd on a modern CPU? > Absolutely negligible - at least when serving a dozen clients and > serving as a stratum-1 PPS clock. Perhaps a little more with > thousands of clients, of course. Not running ntpd continuously will > ruin its accuracy.
For notebook users running ntpd only as an NTP client the extra wakeup per second may make a measurable difference in battery life. I was just pointing out it will take more resources than ntpd -q run twice a day. Of course, the accuracy will be orders of magnitude worse than continuosly running ntpd (even with poll 15 or 16). -- Miroslav Lichvar _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
