On Sun, 15 Mar 2009, Robert Hajime Lanning wrote: >> I tried to explain in my article in _;login:_ magazine the issues that I >> was aware of in this space, and I will refer you to that for the extent >> of my understanding. But I do know that this is just the tip of the >> iceberg on this subject. > > Can't read it. Not a member. Sorry. I'll see if I can get to it in > October, when it is available.
actually, IMHO, you didn't explain very much at all in your article, you basicly stated that any competent person would know why having two NTP servers is worse than having one (with no information or links explaining your reasoning for this), and then went off into esoteric realms that aren't really that useful for sysadmins who want their servers clocks 'close enough' (say within a half second or so of each other) but aren't trying to have all their clocks 'perfect' (within the limits of NTP) you care a _lot_ more about NTP than most people. that's just fine, up until the point where you start attacking others for not careing as much about the fine details as you do. and if a clock going haywire can cause clients to permanently (until restart) ignore it, I do consider it a flaw in the ntp software. things break and get fixed, having to go to all clients to restart them (especially if multiple servers were defined) is silly. David Lang P.S. there is a _very_ good reason for configuring systems to point at two NTP servers instead of one, it means that the clocks will remain synced much better if one NTP server dies rathat than having them all go off in their own directions. the time may not ever be as precise as the single NTP server case, but it's good enough for almost all real-world applications. _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://lopsa.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech This list provided by the League of Professional System Administrators http://lopsa.org/
