Dennis Hilberg Jr wrote: > "David Woolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > | In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > | Dennis Hilberg Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > | > | > It works great. So if/when my IP address changes, all I would have to > do is > | > update the A record in my web's DNS configs. Which I think would be > easier > | > | ntpd never re-resolves domain names, so any servers which change address > | are lost until the next reboot. > > This would definitely pose a challenge if my IP changed. So ntpd resolves > the domain once, then uses the resulting IP address until the next reboot or > service restart, correct? > > | Also, as a correctly operated system would not change IP addresses except > | after extended downtime, it is generally assumed that these IP address > | changes are the result of a deliberate policy to frustrate the operation > | of servers. It may just be that you are currently operating under > | circumstances where that policy isn't working well. > > My server is on a network behind a router, and the router and modem never > get turned off. Could this be why I keep the same IP for extended periods? > Comcast told me once that their lease period for the dynamic IP addresses is > one week, but almost always lease the same IP continuously. I was going to > call Comcast last night and inquire about purchasing a static IP (if that's > even possible), but didn't get around to it. > > | > | > server time-nw.nist.gov iburst # Microsoft Corporation, > | > Redmond, WA > | > | I know this one is aliased as the Microsoft one, but is it really run by > | Microsoft, or do they just pay NIST to be able to use it in Windows? > | From what I've read, all the NIST servers are overloaded to the point > | where they are not the best choice and this one may well be particularly > | overloaded. > > All that I know about this server is what I gather from here: > http://ntp.isc.org/bin/view/Servers/TimeNwNistGov. According to that link > the server is not running a Windows OS (surprising). Maybe Microsoft > allowed the government to come in and set up a server using their network. > You may be right about it being overloaded, as under 'ntpq -p' it's always > flagged with the hyphen (-). I was considering replacing it with a > different server. I chose it only because of its proximity to me, and low > latency.
Based on the information that you've given, I would strongly recommend that it not be added to the pool. There are just too many issues. I don't run the pool but I suspect that your configuration violates too many of the guidelines that I would want to have in place for an NTP pool. Danny _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
