On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 08:59:51PM -0600, Michael Rathbun wrote: > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 18:36:46 -0800, John Pettitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >> These servers are running OpenNTPD and they both have scores of 20. > >> Something must be done to prevent this. Just look at the nasty offset > >> history. It's outrageous! > >> > >> > >The obvious answer is to try and detect open ntpd (easy enough if n > >quires return n different refid's it's openntp) and then reject the > >server because it's not going to be reliable. > > I think you may have missed a bit of sarcasm here. Mr Chandler's > message was sent from one of the IPs that he listed as being > horrifyingly off the mark.
Indeed. Those are my servers, and they consistently score 20, and of course they are both running OpenNTPD. Sarcasm aside, and baiting aside, is there anything about these servers that makes them unsuitable for pool servers? I'm sure there are nits and minor criticisms, valid and otherwise. But if we keep to the real issue about the pool then I'd be happy to know why these servers don't fit the bill. And if they ARE found unsuitable, then I'd suggest some better metrics are used for scoring. Mr. Pettitt's suggestion of fingerprinting and excluding his least favorite software is probably not a good way to measure things. -- Darrin Chandler | Phoenix BSD User Group | MetaBUG [EMAIL PROTECTED] | http://phxbug.org/ | http://metabug.org/ http://www.stilyagin.com/ | Daemons in the Desert | Global BUG Federation _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
