alt Hacker News-10ms, no redundant clocks, and they're leaving most of the servers up with that amount of skew. Wow. I am astonished that NIST does not have multiple clocks over multiple distributed sites with robust ability to detect and bypass individual failures.
Replies
> I am astonished that NIST does not have multiple clocks over multiple distributed sites with robust ability to detect and bypass individual failures.
They may not operate redundant clocks at a single site, but ITS redundancy posture[1] doesn't look bad at all:
>> Servers at the Boulder and WWV/Ft. Collins campuses are independent and unaffected.
> I am astonished that NIST does not have multiple clocks over multiple distributed sites with robust ability to detect and bypass individual failures.
Is this sarcasm? I can't tell.
Per the email:
> Servers at the Boulder and WWV/Ft. Collins campuses are independent and unaffected.
They do have multiple clocks and sites. The primary clock is in Boulder. Only the Maryland time servers are affected, the Colorado ones should be fine. They mention switching to another atomic clock, but that probably has to be setup.
The email explains why they haven't shut down, cause haven't hit the threshold. And talks about maybe shutting them down manually.