William Unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote: > On 2014-12-06, Rob <nom...@example.com> wrote: >> William Unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote: >>> On 2014-12-05, Rob <nom...@example.com> wrote: >>>> William Unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote: >>>>>>> For internal systems I would want four servers minimum, two on-site, >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> two on the company WAN, >>>>>> >>>>>> I think that is ridiculous. Introducing too many safeguards often >>>>>> results in more failures due to extra complexity in the system. >>>>> >>>>> The problem with two is that if oneof the servers goes nuts-- for some >>>>> reason starts to give out the wrong time (ie, its time is not UTC time) >>>> >>>> a. that will almost never happen >>>> b. that will be caught by the monitoring (e.g. nagios) and an alert will >>>> be sent and/or the system will be shut down automatically. >>> >>> Would it not be nicer is the alert is sent, but the system still keeps >>> going and not shutting down? Shutting down a system seems like a pretty >>> heavy price to pay for not having three instead of 2 sources. >> >> Not shutting down the client, shutting down the errant timeserver. >> Or only its NTP service. >> When you have two NTP servers and one goes nuts, just shut it down and >> send an alert to the operator so it can be fixed. The clients continue >> to sync to the other server without problem. >> That is so much easier than to setup 4 servers and configure them in >> all clients and let the complicated voting process happen in all clients. > > It is both hard, and somewhat dangeous to allow clients to shut down > servers. Imagine the opportunity for nefarious activity.
Not clients, management stations. Why are you being so dense? > And how in the world is it hard to set up 4 servers rather than 2, and > configure them. And the voting is done by the program. How does that > make anything harder. The 4 is suggested as a minimum with more recommended. That is not reasonable for a company with 100 systems, as the poster brought forward. >> It becomes clearer and clearer to me that you are an armchair theorist >> that has never been in touch with a professionally managed IT environment. > > REsorting to attempted personal attacks does not much for your > credibility. You must be referring to yourself? See above, yet another proof that you have never seen a managed network. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
