Chris Hastie wrote:
Actually, that server isn't on a DSL line. It's co-located on a fast connection, but does have a transfer limit. Which is why I'm not keen on a system that tries to load balanced based on connections speed. I've
I think a better way of specifying the load balancing would be to ask each server operator to specify the peak (and/or average) transfer rate they are willing to *donate* to the pool. Instead of asking how fast their Internet connection is.
Of course it is not possible to guarantee the amount of packets each server gets, but it is easier for a server operator to give a concrete number that describes their *wishes*. Even if the speeds given by the server operators have little relation to the actual bandwidth consumed by ntp at those servers, they all have the same unit and thus can be directly compared to other servers.
In any case, at some time in the future, a better load balancing system is needed to cut the peaks, to be able to efficiently utilize those willing to donate a smaller amount of bandwidth. I think this can be done well enough with a DNS server that is a) geographically aware and b) can weigh the answers it gives out. That's probably the only realistic thing we can do anyways, as changing all or even the most used ntp client software is not going to happen anytime soone and getting an AS number for doing routing tricks at the IP level is, umm, Big Gun Stuff..
Tapio _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
