On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 04:37:33PM -0800, Greg Lindahl wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 11:01:31PM -0800, Bernard Li wrote:
>
> > Have you tried other pools eg. pool.ntp.org?
>
> That is stable for me. So it's not me, it's Red Hat's pool that's
> wonky.
>
> I see that CentOS switched to using ntp.org in 5.2, which I didn't
> automagically get thanks to rpm creating ntpservers.rpmnew, even
> though I hadn't modified the ntpservers file. Mmf.
Does it make sense to have a small local pool between the
local cluster and the internet?
A couple of venerable 'clock[1,2,...]' boxes with a single network
interface sitting on a DMZ could have a buffering effect for a thousand
boxes one NTP stratum behind them. Major co-location sites should have
some provisioning for quality local NTP time references as well.
Given the design of pool.ntp.org it makes sense for a business to
do some quality audits of ntp.org hosts and contact local high
quality ones directly.
--
T o m M i t c h e l l
Found me a new hat, now what?
_______________________________________________
Beowulf mailing list, Beowulf@beowulf.org
To change your subscription (digest mode or unsubscribe) visit
http://www.beowulf.org/mailman/listinfo/beowulf
