Danny Mayer wrote:
> On 12/27/2011 8:48 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Danny Mayer wrote:
>>> On 12/24/2011 8:10 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
John Hasler wrote:
>> The open sky nearest the OPERA detector is straight up through 1400m of
>> rock.
>
> Jim Penni
On 2011-12-27, Danny Mayer wrote:
> On 12/27/2011 1:16 PM, unruh wrote:
>> On 2011-12-27, Danny Mayer wrote:
>>> On 12/26/2011 11:17 PM, ben slimup wrote:
Thanks Danny for your reply,
but is it a big problem, if the client round-trip packet comes from a
different servers each
On 2011-12-28, Danny Mayer wrote:
> On 12/24/2011 8:10 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> John Hasler wrote:
The open sky nearest the OPERA detector is straight up through 1400m of
rock.
>>>
>>> Jim Pennino writes:
And the easiest open sky to get to is horizontally down the tu
On 2011-12-28, Danny Mayer wrote:
> On 12/27/2011 9:08 PM, John Hasler wrote:
>> Danny writes:
>>> GPS is not used for this kind of thing, they are too inaccurate, so it
>>> doesn't matter. They use atomic clocks.
>>
>> The requirement is for synchronization. They use common view GPS.
>
> That's
Greg Hennessy wrote:
>>> The bottom line is that the only thing that is relevant is how easy it is
>>> to get to a GPS antenna with an open view of the sky.
>>>
>>> Everything else is bloviation.
>>
>> GPS is not used for this kind of thing, they are too inaccurate, so it
>> doesn't matter. They
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 00:51, Danny Mayer wrote:
> No you don't want to do DNS over TCP if you can avoid it. It would be a
> major hit on the resolver servers and with the kind of high volume that
> you get as mobile devices make increasing use of such networks. You want
> WiFi to drop UDP packet
On 12/27/2011 10:39 PM, Greg Hennessy wrote:
>>> The bottom line is that the only thing that is relevant is how easy it is
>>> to get to a GPS antenna with an open view of the sky.
>>>
>>> Everything else is bloviation.
>>
>> GPS is not used for this kind of thing, they are too inaccurate, so it
>>
At 10:40 PM 12/27/2011, Danny Mayer wrote...
On 12/27/2011 9:08 PM, John Hasler wrote:
> The requirement is for synchronization. They use common view GPS.
That's not good enough for experiments like this.
You say that as if it's a fact. You're on the wrong list to just make
such an unsuppor
>> The bottom line is that the only thing that is relevant is how easy it is
>> to get to a GPS antenna with an open view of the sky.
>>
>> Everything else is bloviation.
>
> GPS is not used for this kind of thing, they are too inaccurate, so it
> doesn't matter. They use atomic clocks.
GPS is in
On 12/27/2011 9:08 PM, John Hasler wrote:
> Danny writes:
>> GPS is not used for this kind of thing, they are too inaccurate, so it
>> doesn't matter. They use atomic clocks.
>
> The requirement is for synchronization. They use common view GPS.
That's not good enough for experiments like this.
On 12/27/2011 8:48 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Danny Mayer wrote:
>> On 12/24/2011 8:10 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> John Hasler wrote:
> The open sky nearest the OPERA detector is straight up through 1400m of
> rock.
Jim Pennino writes:
> And the easi
Danny Mayer wrote:
> On 12/24/2011 8:10 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> John Hasler wrote:
The open sky nearest the OPERA detector is straight up through 1400m of
rock.
>>>
>>> Jim Pennino writes:
And the easiest open sky to get to is horizontally down the tunnel to
th
Danny writes:
> GPS is not used for this kind of thing, they are too inaccurate, so it
> doesn't matter. They use atomic clocks.
The requirement is for synchronization. They use common view GPS.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
_
On 12/24/2011 8:11 PM, Dave Hart wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 18:18, unruh wrote:
>> On 2011-12-24, David J Taylor wrote:
>>> - one Netbook PC worked very well on a LAN connection (about 1 ms steady
>>> jitter). However, when moving to a Wi-Fi connection after a power-down
>>> reboot, the re
On 12/24/2011 8:10 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
>>> The open sky nearest the OPERA detector is straight up through 1400m of
>>> rock.
>>
>> Jim Pennino writes:
>>> And the easiest open sky to get to is horizontally down the tunnel to
>>> the entrance which is next to a
On 12/24/2011 1:11 PM, unruh wrote:
> On 2011-12-24, John Hasler wrote:
>> I wrote:
>>> An upcoming experiment at Fermilab will observe neutrinos at both ends
>>> (the far end will be in Minnesota).
>>
>> unruh writes:
>>> Well, no. At best the electrons or muons at one end.
>>
>> At best the elec
On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 21:53, Terje Mathisen wrote:
> Not for just 4 or 6, but if you have a lot and configure them with 'preempt'
> then you will end up with a smaller active set, consisting of (mostly)
> better servers, right?
I haven't experimented with preempt, but I believe you're right as
l
On 12/27/2011 1:16 PM, unruh wrote:
> On 2011-12-27, Danny Mayer wrote:
>> On 12/26/2011 11:17 PM, ben slimup wrote:
>>> Thanks Danny for your reply,
>>>
>>> but is it a big problem, if the client round-trip packet comes from a
>>> different servers each time? why?
>>>
>>
>> Because NTP uses multi
Rob wrote:
Terje Mathisen<"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> wrote:
ntp is by design load-balanced: You enter a bunch of servers for each
client, the client will then monitor each server and decide which is
currently performing best, sync to this one, while keeping the rest as
backup/sanity check.
On 2011-12-27, Danny Mayer wrote:
> On 12/26/2011 11:17 PM, ben slimup wrote:
>> Thanks Danny for your reply,
>>
>> but is it a big problem, if the client round-trip packet comes from a
>> different servers each time? why?
>>
>
> Because NTP uses multiple packets to gain data on the round-trip d
Terje Mathisen <"terje.mathisen at tmsw.no"> wrote:
> ben slimup wrote:
>>
>> Thank Danny and Dave,
>>
>> Your explanations are nice and clear.
>>
>> so in that case does it means that ntp protocol cannot be load
>> balanced at all??
>
> Rather the opposite!
>
> ntp is by design load-balanced: You
On Dec 26, 2011, at 11:34 PM, ben slimup wrote:
> so in that case does it means that ntp protocol cannot be load balanced at
> all??
A load-balancer that provides session affinity based only upon source IP would
function to some extent, but keeping track of all that state is vastly more
work th
ben slimup wrote:
Thank Danny and Dave,
Your explanations are nice and clear.
so in that case does it means that ntp protocol cannot be load
balanced at all??
Rather the opposite!
ntp is by design load-balanced: You enter a bunch of servers for each
client, the client will then monitor eac
Danny Mayer wrote:
On 12/22/2011 6:40 AM, Terje Mathisen wrote:
ben slimup wrote:
those clients will use dns round robin to resolve 4 external ip, 2 IPs
on each site.
DO NOT USE ROUND ROBIN DNS for NTP!
You can use round robin dns for NTP. There's nothing wrong with that.
It's load balancin
24 matches
Mail list logo
