3 ms·

I use the native OpenNTPD on OpenBSD and it works like a charm. No DDoS or buffer overflows, but it keeps me regular. Theo recently posted to the OpenBSD tech

• _delirium 12y ago
  A good portion of the size difference (though certainly not all) is that ntp.org's ntpd has a lot of drivers to interface with physical devices [1], while OpenNTPD doesn't. If you don't own the physical devices, the LoC in the drivers are kind of a wash: they're not useful to you, but you also won't be running them. A stripped-down NTP-client-only build option would be nicer, though. PHK's suite of ntpd replacement tools seems to be going in that direction, offering a client-only tool for edge servers that just need to sync time over the network. [1] http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/refclock.html http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/refclock.html
  • markhellewell 12y ago
    On OpenBSD the integration with physical devices is done via builtin software. I run a stratum 1 OpenNTPD server on OpenBSD, with a GPS attached via nmea [1]. The GPS data shows up via the sensors framework, which OpenNTPD interfaces with [2]. [1] http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man4/nmea.4?query=nmea&sec=4 http://www.openbsd.org/cgi-bin/man.cgi/OpenBSD-current/man4/... [2] http://openbsd.id/papers/radio-clocks-asiabsdcon07.pdf http://openbsd.id/papers/radio-clocks-asiabsdcon07.pdf
    • gonzo 12y ago
      It's interesting how the author of the paper (and work) gets PPS sampling wrong.
  • gst 12y ago
    Another difference is that OpenNTPD appears to only implement the less accurate SNTP subset of NTP.
    • RexRollman 12y ago
      Exactly. I was never meant to totally replace NTP but to cover only the most common usage of it.
      • gonzo 12y ago
        Note that according to the RFCs, one can be a SNTP sender (master) or receiver, but not both. This is why OpenNTP is not RFc compliant.