AF:
NF:0
PS:10
SRH:1
SFN:
DSR:
MID:
CFG:
PT:0
S:andy.sharp@lsi.com
RQ:
SSV:mhbs.lsil.com
NSV:
SSH:
R:<Ed.Kwan@lsi.com>,<Maxim.Kozlovsky@lsi.com>,<Larry.Scheer@lsi.com>,<Dave.Johnson@lsi.com>,<John.Keiffer@lsi.com>
MAID:2
X-Sylpheed-Privacy-System:
X-Sylpheed-Sign:0
SCF:#mh/Mailbox/sent
RMID:#imap/LSI/INBOX	0	2B044E14371DA244B71F8BF2514563F50419221A@cosmail03.lsi.com
X-Sylpheed-End-Special-Headers: 1
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 10:54:09 -0800
From: Andrew Sharp <andy.sharp@lsi.com>
To: "Kwan, Ed" <Ed.Kwan@lsi.com>
Cc: "Kozlovsky, Maxim" <Maxim.Kozlovsky@lsi.com>, "Scheer, Larry"
 <Larry.Scheer@lsi.com>, "Johnson, Dave" <Dave.Johnson@lsi.com>, "Keiffer,
 John" <John.Keiffer@lsi.com>
Subject: Re: using pool.ntp.org
Message-ID: <20091202105409.5d67bc7e@ripper.onstor.net>
In-Reply-To: <2B044E14371DA244B71F8BF2514563F50419221A@cosmail03.lsi.com>
References: <2B044E14371DA244B71F8BF2514563F5041920DA@cosmail03.lsi.com>
	<20091202103931.6c0a1be9@ripper.onstor.net>
	<2B044E14371DA244B71F8BF2514563F50419221A@cosmail03.lsi.com>
Organization: LSI
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 2.6.0 (GTK+ 2.8.20; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 11:47:01 -0700 "Kwan, Ed" <Ed.Kwan@lsi.com> wrote:

> 1.  I'm not sure about the "geographically appropriate" part of your
> statement.  From http://www.pool.ntp.org/en/use.html As pool.ntp.org
> will assign you timeservers from all over the world, time quality
> will not be ideal. 2.  Also from the same web site: The 0, 1 and
> 2.pool.ntp.org names point to a random set of servers that will
> change every hour. That means different nodes in the cluster will
> likely be pointing to different NTP servers.  Since the servers are
> not that consistent, per my example, then this will cause clustering
> issues.  I continue to argue we need to pick fixed known good NTP
> servers.

I hear you, but it looks like we both lose, since I continue to argue
that we don't do either, and simply make it dang near impossible to
skip setting up ntp in the FTI.  But nobody liked that idea either.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Andrew Sharp [mailto:andy.sharp@lsi.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 10:40 AM
> To: Kwan, Ed
> Cc: Kozlovsky, Maxim; Scheer, Larry; Johnson, Dave; Keiffer, John
> Subject: Re: using pool.ntp.org
> 
> On Wed, 2 Dec 2009 00:41:35 -0700 "Kwan, Ed" <Ed.Kwan@lsi.com> wrote:
> 
> > I tried and got these servers, which seems pretty crappy.  And since
> > the name to IP address changes frequently, we can't be sure all
> > nodes in the cluster use the same NTP servers.  So are we sure we
> > want to use <0-3>.pool.ntp.org?  Seems a lot worse than the ones I
> > picked earlier.
> > 
> >      remote           refid      st t when poll reach   delay
> > offset  jitter
> > ==============================================================================
> > 127.127.1.0     .LOCL.          10 l   16   64  377    0.000
> > 0.000   0.001 +66.45.62.14     208.201.242.2    3 u   23  128  377
> > 47.024    6.079   0.734 -216.184.20.83   69.36.224.15     2 u    4
> > 128  377   73.661  -38.925   1.994 +198.186.191.229 199.165.76.11
> > 2 u   13  128  377   17.389   -2.059   0.752 *38.117.195.101
> > 206.246.118.250  2 u   69  128  377   79.856    3.444   0.805
> 
> The point is that they will resolve to servers that are geographically
> appropriate wherever the box is, so that's one thing.  Another is that
> -- for the purposes of our product -- this is a half-assed config no
> matter how it's sliced, so if the customer wants something
> not-half-assed (tm), they should put in a proper ntp config.
