Rich Wales wrote: > Richard B. Gilbert wrote: > >> The "Delay" values for some of the servers you have configured >> are large enough to suggest that they are poor choices! > > Agreed. Please note, though, that I didn't explicitly choose > these particular servers -- they came from pools. > > This does suggest that even servers randomly picked from my own > country's pool (*.us.pool.ntp.org) might not be good choices. > > When 4.2.6 comes out, will the "pool" command with the "preempt" > option do a better job of weeding out pool servers that are far > away, and thus possibly of doubtful reliability? > I don't think that "reliability" is a good word choice here. A server may be perfectly reliable and yet be unusable due to long transmission delays. Suitability might be a better choice.
Country pools were a good start and probably adequate for small countries. Countries the size of the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. can't use a country wide pool and have much hope of getting a nearby server. For the U.S. I'd want a "New England pool", a "middle Atlantic pool" (New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virgina), a Southern Atlantic Pool, etc. This assumes that "net space" maps well to geographical space which may not always be a good assumption. If a request for a pool server could specify the requester's latitude and longitude perhaps that information could be used to assign a nearby server? _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
