Brad Knowles wrote: > At 11:33 AM -0400 2005-09-08, Eugene Smiley wrote: > >> It's actually already in place. Foe example, if you are working on >> server in us.pool.ntp.org then the 4 servers are: >> >> us.pool.ntp.org >> 1.us.pool.ntp.org >> 2.us.pool.ntp.org >> 3.us.pool.ntp.org > > There is no 3. numbered sub-zone in any of the pool.ntp.org zones. > They are instead numbered 0-2. Moreover, the same servers are used in > the parent zone as well as in the numbered sub-zones, so there's a good > chance that you'll get a duplicate record.
Oops. My bad. I hadn't had my caffeine yet. I actually meant 0-2. > The OP was asking if it made sense to also include an explicit 3. > sub-zone, at least in the zones where it makes sense, so that we can > make sure that there is no duplication between any of the numbered > sub-zones and that this will give us the minimum four upstream time > servers that are needed to be able to deal with a single falseticker. Ah. _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
