Ask Bjørn Hansen wrote: > On Oct 13, 2007, at 9:50, Evandro Menezes wrote: > > >> And it seems that allowing for 100ms offset due to network traffic >> is perhaps too much leeway. [...] >> > > For now 100ms is "close enough". For SNTP clients it's plenty > accurate. As you noticed, ntpd/NTP clients will figure out to pick > another server. > > >> Finally, instead of an SNTP-way of probing the servers, why not run >> NTP with a appropriate minpoll and noselect to evaluate the actual >> offset better? >> > > Mostly because ntpd doesn't let you remove and add servers "online", > so it'd take longer to add a new server to the monitoring. For the > future distributed monitoring I'm planning to set it up that way though. > > > - ask > > Actually, my servier is in FL and I see fairly frequent spikes of 80ms in the trend graph. I am not sure you can trust that you will always get a short hop. Net traffice can go anywhichway.
Bob _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
