On 2014-12-05, Rob <nom...@example.com> wrote: > William Unruh <un...@invalid.ca> wrote: >>>> For internal systems I would want four servers minimum, two on-site, and >>>> two on the company WAN, >>> >>> I think that is ridiculous. Introducing too many safeguards often >>> results in more failures due to extra complexity in the system. >> >> The problem with two is that if oneof the servers goes nuts-- for some >> reason starts to give out the wrong time (ie, its time is not UTC time) > > a. that will almost never happen > b. that will be caught by the monitoring (e.g. nagios) and an alert will > be sent and/or the system will be shut down automatically.
Would it not be nicer is the alert is sent, but the system still keeps going and not shutting down? Shutting down a system seems like a pretty heavy price to pay for not having three instead of 2 sources. > >> Of course your monitoring might catch this, or it might not, depending >> on whether you had thought of this failure mode when you set it up. So >> the clients could do this for days or weeks. Now if you do not care if >> the time jumps around by a second, then this is fine. Some places >> however need better time control than that. > > The monitoring for ntpd servers shipped by default with nagios has no > problem detecting this. And when it does, what happens-- the company goes out of business? Noone cares? It also sends out for coffee and doughnuts for the IT team? _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
