Henning Brauer wrote:

quoted text
> * Boris Goldberg  [2007-10-23 15:50]:

>

>> CP> One  system  would  get time from the NTP pool and all other servers on

>> CP> the network would sync to the local server.

>>   You  don't  really  need ntpd on all systems. One (timeserver) runs ntpd,

>> and others use rdate, called from cron (once a day is usually enough).

>>

>

> that is bad advice.

> it is not only much more work to set up, it also doesn't remotely yield

> the same results. ntpd is much much better, since it doesn't rely on a

> single answer from soem server to set the clock, and because it adjusts

> the clock frequency over time.

> there is not much point in using rdate at all.

>   

 From what I have read in this thread, it looks like only one guy

prefers the old timed and rdate tools. A few are even telling him he is

giving bad advice when promoting the usage of these tools. Henning

mentioned that rdate and timed are pretty much useless and others have

said that timed is obsolete. So why don't we remove them from the source

tree?
Last night when I was researching a way to sync my clocks I became

confused as to what I should be using. This thread and Henning's

OpenNTPD presentation at

http://www.openbsd.org/papers/ntpd_sucon04/index.html definitely cleared

things up and answered all my questions. Thanks to all that replied and

Henning for leading the OpenNTPD project.
-pachl