[ntp:questions] Re: how many servers should I poll?

Brian Garrett mgy1912 at cox.net
Sun Aug 10 20:06:42 UTC 2003

"Maarten Wiltink" <maarten at kittensandcats.net> wrote in message
news:3f3607ff$0$49098$e4fe514c at news.xs4all.nl...
> Mike Ayers wrote in message ...
> [...]
> > Ummm - why is everyone so eager to find servers of dubious quality?
> Isn't
> >there a list of servers of good quality, or at least attempted good
> quality,
> >posted?  Being tightly synced to a loosely synced server may not be the
> best thing.
> It has to do with playing nice and not overburdening servers high in
> the tree. The stratum tree was designed in for a good reason: it scales
> very well... except of course for the thousands of people who think
> only stratum 1 is good enough for them.
> There's also the idea that it's a reasonable expectation of an ISP that
> they provide this service. It's their part of playing nice, if you will.
> Groetjes,
> Maarten Wiltink
If only more ISP's agreed with you.  When I was first told that Cox had no
NTP server available and found out the next day that that was false, I
thought perhaps their tech support droids were simply unaware that they had
one.  The more I hear of professionals talking being told by their ISP's
being told by service reps that their server have no NTP servers available,
the more convinced I am that most ISP's don't *want* their customers to know
about their NTP service.  Why this is, I'm not certain; we certainly pay
them enough.  Perhaps those of us who are treated this way need to call
their bluff more often.

A network that is not synchronized is asking for trouble, and any ISP worthy
of the name knows this.  Of *course* they have a time server available--they
just need to be persuaded that allowing their paying customers to use it
once in a while is a good thing.


More information about the questions mailing list