Henk P. Penning wrote: > Simon Arlott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> If ntpd is to be changed it'd make more sense to do some "pool of ntp >> servers" specific changes. > > Agree. If ntpd was 'pool aware', it could evolve the client's > set of pool servers. > > For instance, If the client uses 4 pool servers, it could (daily) > throw out the worst server and replace it by a randomly chosen > other pool server.
I know I rather have a set of hand-picked servers... > I think this would quickly converge to a good, stable set of > servers for each client. Clients would drift towards using > 'close by' servers. This would benefit the pool because overall > traffic would decrease. And if it works, we no longer need the > regional pools. There won't be a convergence to a stable set of 4 servers if you throw out one of them on a daily basis. You are not even guaranteed to get a single stable server. Consider having 5 "optimal" peers, all at the same nearby provider; each of those servers alternately spend 1 day in the global pool and gets swamped by ntpdate bursts during the day. > Is this a good long term strategy for the pool ? You are suggesting something that requires experimentation... It's unclear what the long-term effects are. I like the proposed ideas of "spare" servers in the ntp.conf. Another change that would be nice to have is the option to mark servers as pool servers in the config and have ntpd perform a DNS lookup for a new IP when the pool server is unavailable for some time. Peter. _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
