I would venture to guess most users use ntpdate instead of ntpd so it would relookup every time.
I have two servers on gigabit setting and I have only gotten 2 spikes over the last 2 days. But it can go a day or two with solid spikes. I think the spikes I see are when larger isp's dns servers cache an entry with my ip in it, so all their customers keep getting my ip to use. (atleast how I explain it to myself) http://stats.patrickdk.com/munin/patrickdk.com/Totals.html patbox2 is for internal use only, just have it there as a base reference, patbox4 is set to to a low bandwidth, butlooks like I need to setup it's counting rules again. patbox and patbox3 have been set to gigabit since they joined. Quoting Nelson Minar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Thanks for the explanation, Ask. > > My stats have settled down now. Changing my netspeed from 1.5Mbps to > 100Mbps resulted in my traffic going from 15 reqs/second to 19 > reqs/second and my unique IPs / second (in a 10 minute window) to go > from about 3.8 to 4.2. Unless my analysis is wrong that suggests that > increasing my speed 60x resulted in only about 1.3x more traffic after > three days. > > I've got two explanations for that.Maybe the weighting of netscores > isn't affecting the DNS rotation like you intended. Or maybe hosts > aren't looking up DNS entries very often and so haven't been exposed to > my new weighting after three days. I kind of like that second > explanation since it's consistent with what we know about how ntpd > works. Do we know how often a typical pool user re-resolves > pool.ntp.org? We know a few clients stick to an old IP address for > months, but what do most of them do? I guess your proposed experiment of > taking myself out of the DNS entirely would give us a graph of that. > Does anyone already have a requests/second graph for some server they > removed from the pool? If not I'll try it out. > > > Ryan Malayter wrote: >> Wouldn't it make sense to weight by a logarithmic or other sub-linear >> function of the netspeed instead? We surely wouldn't want a pool >> server with a gigabit connection receiving 667 times the traffic of a >> pool server behind a T1. > I'm incline to agree with that. > > _______________________________________________ > timekeepers mailing list > [email protected] > https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers > _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
