[ntp:questions] Monitoring NTP - nptq -p

Per Hedeland per at hedeland.org
Mon Mar 26 20:42:33 UTC 2007

In article <46079fea$0$24676$426a74cc at news.free.fr> Spoon
<devnull at localhost.com> writes:
>I would have thought that short polling intervals are always better,
>ignoring traffic overhead issues:
>If the current "correct" interval should have been e.g. 64 seconds
>instead of 16 seconds, just ignore 3 out of 4 replies.
>Where is the flaw in my logic?

I believe the other respondents didn't actually read what you wrote, or
perhaps failed to register what was a pretty bizarre idea... The flaw
isn't with your logic but with your common sense, e.g. the idea that you
could "ignore traffic overhead issues" - an implementation that sent 3
out 4 requests only to throw away the replies should and would be
considered totally unacceptable.

--Per Hedeland
per at hedeland.org

More information about the questions mailing list