Serge,
No; the server will detect that as a headway violation and drop the
packets with, if configured, a KoD.
Come to think of it, randomization is not really required in the latest
snapshot, since it knows about headway and will throttle accordingly.
Only in your case where the daemon is stopped and restarted will the
vioation be detected at the server.
Dave
Serge Bets wrote:
> Hello David,
>
> On Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at 3:03:37 +0000, David L. Mills wrote:
>
>
>>The behavior after a step is deliberate. The iburst volley after a
>>step is delayed a random fraction of the poll interval to avoid
>>implosion at a busy server.
>
>
> Ah OK, I understand now! Thank you.
>
> This makes me wonder: When starting ntpd -gq doing a step and quitting,
> then immediatly starting ntpd daemon, this sequence sends 2 iburst
> volleys, over around 14 seconds, without the said random delay in
> between. Is that not rude to servers? The slew_sleeping script should be
> modified to sleep some time after a step. How much? 16 to 64 s?
>
> | /^ntpd: time set .*s$/ {
> | sleep = 16 + int(rand() * 49)
> | success = 1
> | }
>
>
> Serge.
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
