On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:37 PM, Brian Inglis <brian.ing...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> I hope that description is inaccurate, because of the additional > delay and jitter added by passing twice through the front end. > It may not be the case now but that would be an enormous error on the part of the authors. Well designed load balancers run at wire speed (at least up to 1G) and shouldn't add any more jitter than any other switch. By the way the 590SG only has four ports. Uplink, Downlink, Mirror and (probably) Manage. It probably has less jitter than the router it's plugged into. > I would expect the load balancer to only provide the IP > addresses of the currently lowest loaded and highest quality > servers closest to the client, as the NTP Pool does. > That's not what IP load balancers do. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
