[ntp:questions] ntpdate.c unsafe buffer write

Martin Burnicki martin.burnicki at meinberg.de
Tue Feb 12 08:49:07 UTC 2008


David L. Mills wrote:
> Serge,
> The behavior after a step is deliberate. The iburst volley after a step
>   is delayed a random fraction of the poll interval to avoid implosion
> at a busy server. An additional delay may be enforced to avoid violating
> the headway restrictions. This is not to protect your applications; it
> is to protect the server.

Is it really necessary to insert a random delay after a step? There has
already been a random delay immediately after startup, before the client
has decided that a step was required.

So even if a bunch of clients started up at the same time and had to step,
they wouln't step at the same time, and thus wouldn't do the next iburst
volley at the same time anyway.

Martin Burnicki

Meinberg Funkuhren
Bad Pyrmont

More information about the questions mailing list