On Thursday 25 October 2007, David J Taylor wrote: > Chuck wrote: > > i was just reading several documents that used by default the iburst > > option for remote servers. is this a 'proper' practice? > > > > is it better than not having anything after the server name? > > > > eg: from the document: > > > > server 0.uk.pool.ntp.org iburst > > server 1.uk.pool.ntp.org iburst > > Chuck, > > Yes, it is. "iburst" enables quicker initial synchronisation by sending a > burst of 8 enquiries. The burst is only sent on first contact, so it's a > friendly thing to do, and good practice. >
wow thats fast! i restarted my testbed and it sync'd within seconds. > "burst" sends multiple enquiries /every/ time, and is therefore > unfriendly. > > Cheers, > David > -- > SatSignal software - quality software written to your requirements > Web: http://www.satsignal.eu > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > _______________________________________________ > timekeepers mailing list > [email protected] > https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers > -- Chuck "...and the hordes of M$*ft users descended upon me in their anger, and asked 'Why do you not get the viruses or the BlueScreensOfDeath or insecure system troubles and slowness or pay through the nose for an OS as *we* do?!!', and I answered...'I use Linux'. " The Book of John, chapter 1, page 1, and end of book _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
