[ntp:questions] ntpdate.c unsafe buffer write

Maarten Wiltink maarten at kittensandcats.net
Wed Feb 13 10:42:23 UTC 2008

"David L. Mills" <mills at udel.edu> wrote in message
news:fots64$2g7$1 at scrotar.nss.udel.edu...

>>> No, there is no random delay at startup. Each association starts one
>>> second after the previous one. The random backoff occurs only after
>>> a step.
>> Is there also a random backoff after an increase of the polling
>> interval?

> No. However, there is a small dither of a few percent at all poll
> intervals to resist self-synchronization.

Wouldn't that be a nice feature to add? If it's currently polling a
server on, say second 100 (reckoned externally) of 256, to go to
either 100 _or 356_ of 512.

I understand that there are already some random waits in the client
code and Internet servers are well protected by random noise. But
for large numbers of clients in a uniform environment that were all
started at about the same time, is there any way they tend to
naturally disperse across the final 1024s polling interval?

Maarten Wiltink

More information about the questions mailing list