[email protected] said: > There isnât currently. It wouldnât be terribly hard to add, but itâs not > super clear to me that itâs the appropriate solution (or maybe even exactly > what the problem is!).
The problem is to stop NTP traffic to a host after it has been removed from the pool. I'm interested in the case where the owner removes it rather than the score is low. I'd be happy if it took a week or maybe even a month. > For users using the âpoolâ keyword, I think itâd make sense to every ~24 > hours (?) replace the worst performing server and, for example, every week > (?) replace the âoldestâ server. Something like that may be a better approach. It seems ugly to drop the oldest server if it is working well. I don't see a simple fix without something like a special DNS check. --------- With the current setup, there is no way to get rid of the tail of traffic when a server is removed from the pool. If we could agree on something, then you could change the rules for using the pool and eventually, when/if software/operations got updated, the pollution from the tail would get reduced. We would also have to come up with a similar mechanism to handle the case where the pool is used via the server command or equivalent. I've been thinking that the server mode could just do the DNS lookup again occasionally. That would handle the normal server moving case. If the server name pointed to the pool, it would shift to a new server almost all the time. --------- Do you have any good data on the size of the tail? If not, I'll be glad to help with an experiment. --------- How big a problem is the current DNS load? -- These are my opinions. I hate spam.
_______________________________________________ pool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
