[ntp:questions] server and peer lines correct?

Harlan Stenn stenn at ntp.org
Mon Apr 7 23:39:36 UTC 2014

Charles Swiger writes:
> On Apr 7, 2014, at 12:12 PM, Harlan Stenn <stenn at ntp.org> wrote:
> > Why would you not want to iburst all of the servers?
> iburst helps to populate the reachability field quickly.
> That reduces the interval it takes for an NTP server to move from:
> associd=0 status=c012 leap_alarm, sync_unspec, 1 event, freq_set   =>
> associd=0 status=0615 leap_none, sync_ntp, 1 event, clock_sync
> ...which is the transition needed before clients of the server will
> trust it for time.


> However, the transition doesn't happen any faster if you only use one
> server with iburst, or with all of the server lines.  The data I've
> seen doesn't show any significant differences to the local clock
> variables like frequency, sys_jitter, clk_jitter.

That's true.

And if the one machine you choose for iburst happens to be down, it
takes a long time to sync up.

This is why we recommend using iburst on all server lines - it quickly
brings each server "into the fold".


More information about the questions mailing list