Re: "ntpdate" versus "ntpd"
From: Bevan C. Bennett (bevan_at_fulcrummicro.com)
Date: 01/30/04
- Previous message: Robert Echlin: "Re: production server"
- In reply to: Rick Stevens: "Re: "ntpdate" versus "ntpd""
- Next in thread: Leonard den Ottolander: "Re: "ntpdate" versus "ntpd""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: fedora-list@redhat.com Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 12:09:36 -0800
Rick Stevens wrote:
> I didn't mean to sound as if I were criticizing you. Your surmise is
> correct. "ntpd -q" is the same as running ntpd with the "iburst" config
> option. It does have the effect of dragging the clock into sync when
> it's way off, which is what ntpdate does/did.
Actually, to drag the clock into sync what it's "way" off, you also need
to include the "-g" flag to tell it to ignore it's normal cutoff.
Wow. It's been so long since I needed to look at the ntpd manpage that I
had no idea they were going to deprecate ntpdate. It sounds like they
have good reasons, but thanks to the original poster to bringing this
pending change to my attention.
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
- Previous message: Robert Echlin: "Re: production server"
- In reply to: Rick Stevens: "Re: "ntpdate" versus "ntpd""
- Next in thread: Leonard den Ottolander: "Re: "ntpdate" versus "ntpd""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
|