[ntp:questions] Number of Stratum 1 & Stratum 2 Peers

Rob nomail at example.com
Sat Dec 6 17:52:35 UTC 2014

William Unruh <unruh at invalid.ca> wrote:
> On 2014-12-06, Rob <nomail at example.com> wrote:
>> William Unruh <unruh at invalid.ca> wrote:
>>> On 2014-12-05, Rob <nomail at example.com> wrote:
>>>> William Unruh <unruh at 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.
>> Not shutting down the client, shutting down the errant timeserver.
>> Or only its NTP service.
>> When you have two NTP servers and one goes nuts, just shut it down and
>> send an alert to the operator so it can be fixed.  The clients continue
>> to sync to the other server without problem.
>> That is so much easier than to setup 4 servers and configure them in
>> all clients and let the complicated voting process happen in all clients.
> It is both hard, and somewhat dangeous to allow clients to shut down
> servers. Imagine the opportunity for nefarious activity. 

Not clients, management stations.
Why are you being so dense?

> And how in the world is it hard to set up 4 servers rather than 2, and
> configure them. And the voting is done by the program. How does that
> make anything harder.

The 4 is suggested as a minimum with more recommended.
That is not reasonable for a company with 100 systems, as the poster
brought forward.

>> It becomes clearer and clearer to me that you are an armchair theorist
>> that has never been in touch with a professionally managed IT environment.
> REsorting to attempted personal attacks does not much for your
> credibility.

You must be referring to yourself?  See above, yet another proof that
you have never seen a managed network.

More information about the questions mailing list