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. "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
