Magnus,
In article 532fa47b.7060...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson
mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote:
Joe,
On 23/03/14 23:20, Joe Gwinn wrote:
Magnus,
In article 532e45db.5000...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson
mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote:
Joe,
On 21/03/14
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Danny Mayer ma...@ntp.org wrote:
That's a misconception. While I trust Richard Schmidt in what he says,
that's is not what you think he says.
It's hard to misinterpret 590SG load balancers and :
It is the load balancer's duty to assign each incoming NTP
(I inadvertently sent this only to Terje Mathisen)
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Danny Mayer wrote:
What do you mean by load-balancing? NTP cannot be load-balanced.
Of course it can (at some cost).
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 3:43 AM, Terje Mathisen wrote:
You really do NOT want
On 03/24/2014 03:53 PM, Paul wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Danny Mayer ma...@ntp.org wrote:
That's a misconception. While I trust Richard Schmidt in what he says,
that's is not what you think he says.
It's hard to misinterpret 590SG load balancers and :
It is the load
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jan Ceuleers jan.ceule...@computer.orgwrote:
But I wonder what an active connection is in this context, since NTP
sits atop UDP.
These are IP based not TCP/IP.
Do the load balancers track whether an association has
been mobilised
They could although the
On Saturday, February 22, 2014 9:19:51 AM UTC-8, Brian Inglis wrote:
Anyone know why USTiming.org and Certichron sites have been down for the last
week?
Nothing relevant mentioned on Google or any lists.
Wondered if they might have been blocked as a reflector of recent DDoS
attacks?
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:08 PM, toddglas...@gmail.com wrote:
The Certichron DNS servers got a DDoS attack against them. We apologize -
please use the native time server addresses until they are replaced later
this week.
Please tell us it was an NTP amplification attack.
Is your web
On 23.03.2014 03:24, questions-requ...@lists.ntp.org digested:
From: Daniel Quick daniel.qu...@gmail.com
Do we want a Netspeed setting that assists with taking the load off
some of the more heavily, higher-speed servers? or do we want to keep
a setting where we serve fewer clients with the
On 03/24/2014 04:58 PM, Paul wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 11:18 AM, Jan Ceuleers
jan.ceule...@computer.org mailto:jan.ceule...@computer.org wrote:
But I wonder what an active connection is in this context, since NTP
sits atop UDP.
These are IP based not TCP/IP.
So there's even
On 2014-03-24 08:53, Paul wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 12:26 AM, Danny Mayer ma...@ntp.org wrote:
That's a misconception. While I trust Richard Schmidt in what he says,
that's is not what you think he says.
It's hard to misinterpret 590SG load balancers and :
It is the load balancer's
Paul G wrote:
(I inadvertently sent this only to Terje Mathisen)
On Sun, Mar 23, 2014 at 12:07 AM, Danny Mayer wrote:
What do you mean by load-balancing? NTP cannot be load-balanced.
Of course it can (at some cost).
Obviously. As I noted plain ntp client requests, without signatures or
any
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Terje Mathisen terje.mathi...@tmsw.no
wrote:
Huh?
I'd rather expect the current trends to continue, with more and more gear
starting to use (often very bad subsets of) the ntp protocol for time sync.
The fastest growing device (and for many many people the
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.
13 matches
Mail list logo
