Re: Chrony vs ntpd (was Re: ntpdate doesn't fix bogus times!)
On Thu, 08 Apr 2004, Kirk Strauser wrote:
> At 2004-04-08T03:04:46Z, Christian Schnobrich <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > Oh, and... everybody suggests chrony as a far superior and more stable
> > solution than ntpd.
For certain situations, yes. Chrony is much better for high latency,
inconstant network access. Ntp is not designed for that, on purpose. Don't
expect the clock to be nearly as accurate as you get out of system with a
low-latency constant network access and ntpd running against good time
servers... but it will be quite good enough for the casual user.
> More stable? In what way? Not once in the years that I've used ntpd have I
> ever had problems with it.
If you don't configure ntp right, it can screw up. But that's the
operator's fault IMHO. There is certainly enough documentation, and ntp
isn't something an unexperienced user should be trying to setup, that is
just an useless burden on the time servers.
In fact, unless you need constant, very precise timekeeping across a bunch
of machines, or you constantly need to ship relatories of the kind that
needs accurate timekeeping against a common reference (such as system logs)
somewhere, ntp is overkill.
Ntpdate and Chrony, used to sync the system up once a day to a high stratum
(> 2) timeserver are a better idea for most people, and much better for the
whole time keeping structure.
For those, Chrony looks like it is simpler to set up, and it will do better
timekeeping than calling ntpdate every so often, when configured to control
the host clock's time drift.
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot