5 ms·
Might want to check out OpenBSD's OpenNTPD: http://www.openntpd.org/ http://www.openntpd.org/
by hiphopyo 12y ago
Might want to check out OpenBSD's OpenNTPD:
http://www.openntpd.org/ http://www.openntpd.org/
- skuhn 12y agoThe portable version (for Linux and other OSes) is unmaintained and the last release is from 2006. I don't use it on that basis alone. Also, the last release of non-portable openntpd is from 2009.
- tedunangst 12y agoThere's little point to a non-portable release. They were made when ntpd was developing faster than OpenBSD, but it's not like OpenBSD stopped making releases in 2009.
- mbq 12y agoThere is also systemd-timesyncd and Chrony.
- TD-Linux 12y agoFedora (or GNOME 3?) uses Chrony by default due to better power management. I assume the same is true for most other distributions.
- vezzy-fnord 12y agosystemd-timesyncd implements SNTP, which is not the same.
- dfc 12y agosystemd-timesyncd is not much of an alternative. It is simply an sntp client, it does not serve time to other hosts nor can it use reference clocks.
- mbq 12y agoSure, but IMO enough many systems use NTP only in a sntp manner to mention it.
- _wmd 12y agoSNTP is only useful as an option of last resort, e.g. you have no embedded RTC, and no storage to track drift. In all other cases a full NTP client is always preferable, since drift and corrections can be applied without causing jumps to the system clock (triggering software bugs and misfired events), and drift statistics can be recorded -- which is inevitably required in almost all circumstances where you're using even high end PC motherboards that still rely on a $.15 crystal time reference
- xorcist 12y agoSNTP is close to useless. Your time server could be off and you'd happily follow along.
- feld 12y agoI've talked to several developers about the state of NTP daemons and neither OpenNTPD nor DragonflyBSD's dntpd are suitable replacements. Neither of those support NTP Authentication nor do they have all of the required algorithms required for proper timekeeping.
- imanaccount247 12y ago>nor do they have all of the required algorithms required for proper timekeeping. I hear something like that a lot, yet all my systems run openntpd and all of them are keeping proper time without issue. What exactly is so not proper about it, and which algorithm exactly does it need to be "proper"?
- tedunangst 12y agoPeople who are into timekeeping are like, really, really into timekeeping. I've been skating by with improper timekeeping, too (whatever that means), but I only need to correlate web log entries and not hadron collisions.
- wglb 12y agoFrom the openntpd.org site at http://www.openntpd.org/goals.html http://www.openntpd.org/goals.html: Reach a reasonable accuracy. We are not after the last microseconds. Whereas NTP looks for maximum accuracy.
- imanaccount247 12y agoThere's a big difference between "proper" and "more accurate than 99.999999999% of people care about" though. How many microseconds of accuracy do most people need? How many does openntpd provide and how many does the other ntpd provide? Claiming it isn't "proper" because in theory it may be 2 microseconds less accurate in some circumstances sounds like FUD.
- noselasd 12y agoI do not know if this is an issue with other ntp daemons today, but I've been bitten by some of them in the distant past - they might keep the time fine, but it really sucks if they sometimes jump the clock instead of properly slewing it. Having to try to debug intricate problems and not knowing if you can trust timestamps on the logs for the actual order of events can drive you nuts.