[ntp:questions] The libntp resumee...
david at ex.djwhome.demon.co.uk.invalid
Sun Sep 7 08:36:35 UTC 2008
Kay Hayen wrote:
> We could alternatively want to change ntpd in a way that the iburst lasts
> until a sufficient synchronization was achieved. But it appears to be more
> simply to delay the iburst by delaying the ntpd start until sufficient
> conditions are met.
That's not going to be desirable. Although you might only use it on
your internal severs, it will soon get round on the grapevine that it is
a good thing to do, which will result in servers that are down or denied
to the client, or the networks of ex-servers getting bombarded with
large numbers of requests, whereas I believe the standard behaviour is
to back off under those circumstances.
More information about the questions