> What use case on the internet would be saturating a Gb link with NTP? Surely, > before that, we should be recommending a second server closer to the clients?
NIST has multiple servers at several locations. Some of them are running 100K packets per second average. I don't know what the busy times look like. With no authentication or other extensions, NTP packets are only 48 bytes. When everything goes right, I can get over a million 48 byte packets/second through an echo server. That's using 85% of the wire. With NTS, packets are 232 bytes. That only takes 400K packets/second to fill up a gigabit link. Of course, the real answer is that I was poking around trying to understand what a busy server would look like and what would be the limit. With NTS, our current code can only handle 90K packets/second. That's 1 CPU running flat out. It's using 1/4 of the wire. Modern CPUs have lots of cores. With 4 threads... The more I think about it, the more I think that threads will clean up the code. -- These are my opinions. I hate spam. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
