In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Ask Bjørn Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > There are only 3 or 4 country zones with enough servers for it to > make sense. I disagree. I strongly disagree. I have strongly disagreed for a long time, so I'm just going to repeat myself. The goal for the region sub-zones (europe, jp, us, etc.) should be that they contain NTP servers that are useful *for NTP clients* in those regions to use. They should not be limited to only *NTP servers* that are in those regions. If there aren't enough NTP servers in those regions, then those zones should be filled with nearby regions. Also, timezone specific zones should be created as another way of dividing up the pool in an easy to configure way. It makes very little sense to give Portugal and Russia the same kinds level of divisions. This also gives a greater division of the pool, allowing for the load to be spread more evenly. These zones need to be set up *now* so that they can start being put into configurations and setup scripts. It make take years before Greece has enough NTP servers to fully support 4 independant zones with no fall-backs to wider zones, but we want people to start configuring their NTP clients that way today. > I thought 3 servers were supposed to be enough to protect against a > false-ticker? Three servers can *detect* a false-ticker, but not *correct* for one. Granted, most likely either of the other two good tickers will be good enough to satisfy the NTP pool's goals, but I think it is reasonable for the pool to support 4 servers. -wayne _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
