Thank you, that makes sense. You are talking about a very different situation than my small single host setup.
On 10/08/2013 10:57 PM, Ryan Malayter wrote: > On Tue, Oct 8, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Arnold Schekkerman > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hi Ryan, >> What is the advantage of off-host servers? why not use the host as (single) >> time-source for all virtual client machines? > > The security policy of most production virutalization environment's > I've seen explicitly prevents the VMs from talking to the host server > at all via the network. They're usually on separate VLANs with > whatever ACLs/firewalls in-between. If you don't have those same sort > of security requirements, what you describe sounds efficient. > > A second potential problem is that VMs *move* between hosts while > they're live and running. So you never really know which physical host > you're going to be on, so you don't know which server to talk to. > Something like VMware DRS moves servers all the time, and even shuts > down hosts automatically at night to save electricity. So you would > need some sort of isolated network with the same IP range configured > in each VM and on each host. Ugly. Or maybe multicast clients with the > hosts acting as multicast servers. > > There is always the "time sync" option in the VM tools packages for > various hypervisors, but that doesn't seem to work as well as running > NTPd or the Windows Time Service inside the VM in my experience. > > _______________________________________________ pool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
