Ryan Malayter writes: > On 9/14/07, Tim Lundström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> There have been discussions about a distributed monitoring system in the >> past. What happened? Are there still plans for a distributed monitoring >> system. With todays system an entire country's pool servers can be >> kicked out of the pool due to one failing link between the national >> exchange point and the monitoring server (OK maybe far fetched but all >> servers using the same ISP). > I would volunteer to host a monitoring node in Chicago, Illinois, USA. > But obviously there has to be some coding work done to support that. > Could it be be as simple as mathematically avergaing the score on each > distributed monitoring server? One purpose of distributing the monitoring servers is so that poor network connectivity/asymmetric latency at one doesn't mess up the scores everywhere. Diversity of network paths and endpoints is the goal, not letting a bad single network path drag things down! To achieve this goal with just a small number (less than 5?) monitoring servers, I think you would take the best cumulative or maybe individual score, so that one monitoring site being screwed up with regard to connectivity doesn't drag anything down. After you get more than 5 monitoring servers, then having one or two with temporarily poor connectivity isn't such a big deal and maybe you do something like throw out the worst and average over the rest. Tim. _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
