HN Explorer

11 comments

[ 4.4 ms ] story [ 55.2 ms ] thread
Panino
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 list stating that ntp.org has 66x the lines of code of OpenBSD's OpenNTPD:

http://marc.info/?l=openbsd-tech&m=141905854411370

_delirium
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

markhellewell
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/...

[2] http://openbsd.id/papers/radio-clocks-asiabsdcon07.pdf

gonzo
It's interesting how the author of the paper (and work) gets PPS sampling wrong.
gst
Another difference is that OpenNTPD appears to only implement the less accurate SNTP subset of NTP.
RexRollman
Exactly. I was never meant to totally replace NTP but to cover only the most common usage of it.
gonzo
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.

rab_oof
OSX really needs adjtimex or ntp_adjtime for high-precision clock synchronization for PLL loops (unless there's another way). If XNU devs wont do it, I may consider adding a new call to the sysent table via a kext (easier to do because of advances in modern open source rootkits). There's a partial port from a BSD to XNU for a starting point. XNU devs ignored that patch author entirely the first time. It's really a shame when collaboration for useful improvements are turned down.