On Fri, Feb 29, 2008 at 09:54:00PM -0600, Michael Rathbun wrote: > On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 20:25:26 -0700, Darrin Chandler > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >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. > > Well, there's apparently a superior peak-to-average ratio when compared > to time.rabendary.net (<http://www.pool.ntp.org/scores/64.183.187.9>), > which we really can't have, old boy.
I've put one of my two servers on xntpd, and both now share the same set for upstream. It'll be interesting to see how it looks after it settles in. -- 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
