>> I'm considering adding iburst to the pool.ntp.org servers specified in >> default ntp.conf in Fedora and RHEL distributions. >> >> Would that be acceptable? > > I believe iburst is the preferred way to do NTP. I personally set all my > servers that way, and would have no problem with you doing that globally > for Fedora/Redhat.
If I remember correctly, iburst can easily make it so that your configuration takes LONGER to get to good time if it finds a not-so-good server first. You may want to have two configurations, one with iburst for Fedora, which is probably more likely to be constantly shutdown and powered back up, and another for RHEL, which is more likely to stay on for extended periods of time. iburst should get things set up more quickly to reasonable time (though might have a possibility of worse time at first), but with a server that will be on for months or years, why bother with iburst? My thoughts, at least. sjm (sent to list this time) _______________________________________________ pool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
