Kevin Oberman wrote: >> Date: Fri, 2 May 2008 07:37:32 -0500 >> From: "Ryan Malayter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> >> On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 12:25 PM, Steve Kostecke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> You should always append iburst to your server lines. >> Aussuming that were true, why isn't iburst the default? You would then >> of course have to add "noiburst" to turn it off... > > I suspect it is because iburst is relatively new and changing defaults is > something that is usually done with great deliberation and only after > people are REALLY sure that it is the right answer, especially when it > only results in an improvement in startup sync and does not fix anything > that was failing. > > I can't think of cases where 'iburst' would break things, though some > special cases might be better off without it, but for 'normal' > configurations using the network to chime with servers. I would not use > it on a reference clock, but I have not given a lot of thought to what > the effect of this might be.
Dialup like ACTS require burst rather than iburst since it will only be online getting information when the modem is active. Danny _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
