Per Hedeland wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tom Smith > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Rick Jones wrote: >>> Rick Jones <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Here is what I have now that I've dropped the minpoll from the server >>>> and dropped LOCAL: >>>> peer bl480c2 minpoll 3 maxpoll 4 iburst >>>> server 10.208.0.1 iburst >>>> server 10.0.0.1 >>>> server 10.202.1.1 >>> Scratch that - I commented-out the last two servers. >>> >>> rick jones >> I think you may have problems, even in the mythical zero-latency network, >> getting the skew consistently below double the clock tick of the system >> with the largest clock tick interval. > > Hm, if you were a newbie here, I'd assume that you simply don't know > what you're talking about, but since you aren't, I must be > misunderstanding you as you appear to be saying that two Unix hosts with > the traditional 100 Hz clock (on the same LAN) couldn't achieve a skew > consistently below 20 ms - while (at least) sub-millisecond offsets in > such setups are commonplace and discussed here every other day. > Apparently not even Windows has the kind of problem you suggest anymore. >
While Rick may be a relative newbie to NTP he has had years of conducting performance analysis of applications and systems. His performance testing of BIND9 is probably *the* seminal reference on DNS testing. Danny _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
