On Sep 8, 2005, at 12:55 PM, wayne wrote:
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.
Sometimes I agree with you, sometimes not. I haven't quite decided.
Mostly I lean towards having the zones as they are now to leave the
admins of the clients better in control.
The argument for filling otherwise small or empty zones with "nearby
regions" is that it'll be easier for clients to get slightly better
defaults than just using {|0.|1.|2.}pool.ntp.org.
I'd counter that if whoever is configuring their ntp server wants a
better configuration they'll better off handpicking appropriate
"nearby regions" or just choosing "I only want servers in my country"
as appropriate to their situation.
Another problem with filling with "nearby regions" is that it's hard
to figure out on a country by country basis what's a "nearby region".
I know from experience that for example many countries in Asia have
better connections to the US than to another random (or even
neighboring) country in Asia.
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.
But a server in Lima, Peru is hardly better served by a server in say
Portland, ME than just getting a random server. A little bit,
sure. But not nearly as well as a slightly more careful
configuration on the part of an informed local administrator.
- ask
--
http://www.askbjoernhansen.com/
_______________________________________________
timekeepers mailing list
[email protected]
https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
