Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net>:
>
> Eric said:
> > I concur. I would need to see actual measurements before I've convinced
> > that
> > ntpd with even a thosand client connections is a performance-degrading
> > load.
>
> I think there are two cases: popular public servers like NIST and everybody
> else.
>
> I agree that the load on most servers is not a problem. The load on the NIST
> servers is huge. I don't know if the limit is network or CPU. When the
> government screwup gets fixed, I'll see if I can get some data.
>
> If you think we should retain the lockclock code, then we should pay
> attention
> to performance.
>
> I think a small server-only mode could be a good fit for both cases.
I'm still going to take convincing. Like, with actual load numbers from
one of those big servers.
We've just seen that a 2.8Ghz system with old, slow memory only goes
to 3% load handling 18K clients. Load is going to rise by number of
clients probably a bit superlinearly, but this still suggests that
even 180K clients would be quite far from saturating even that
hardware, let alone a modern system.
--
<a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>
My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: https://icei.org
Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your own.
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list
devel@ntpsec.org
http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
