[ntp:questions] Re: Why so many dead NTP servers in pool.ntp.org?

David J Taylor david-taylor at blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid
Fri Dec 16 11:44:01 UTC 2005

Adrian von Bidder wrote:
> Just for the benefit of those not following the timekeepers mailing
> list: this is an old debate - some (like me) think the pool should be
> an easy to use service for those that don't have high timing
> requirements but just want their clock to be synced reasonably close
> to the True Time(tm).  For those, subdomains are not necessary - ntpd
> syncs to within a few 10 ms even over very bad network connections.
> The other side is those who want the pool to provide quite good time,
> and also are concerned about network traffic - my answer to these is
> that (i) if you want good time, you need to hand-pick your timeservers
> anyway and (ii) in terms of network traffic, ntp is an absolut
> no-brainer except in very rare circumstances.
> But please lets not debate this here - this is, as I said, an old
> debate and there is no 'correct solution' to it.  You are of course
> invited to the timekeepers mailing list
> (timekeepers-request at fortytwo.ch, subject subscribe), and even if you
> don't start this debate again it is bound to re-surface every few
> months :-).
> cheers
> - -- vbi

Well, since I haven't had chance to speak on the "other" list, I'll speak 
here, but briefly.

I like the present system because it offers:

- generic addresses for those who aren't that fussy.

- regional and country addresses for those of us who are more fussy.

As the present system works, why change it?


More information about the questions mailing list