Okey, added. Thanks for helping
Okey, I have added the IPv6 servers to CN but IPv6 servers has never been a problem for the CN pool. Its IPv4 that is a problem. From now lets focus on adding IPv4 servers.
Its getting better with 18 IPv4 servers in the pool for now.
I have also moved the CA server to US.
Thanks. It looks like the CN zone is doing better. I’m only getting about 15mbps of NTP which is about 25kpps.
@iocc Please also add this server to the CN zone, thanks again!
Please place in the cn and hk zones and remove from the asia zone
Another HK VPS up for the next year
Sure, its now added!
They are added now. Thanks for helping.
I have added the IPv4 to cn and removed asia. IPv6 is not a problem for the CN pool.
And add this server to the cn zone:
Done, done and done. Thanks.
I put together one last unmetered kvm VPS to be dedicated to China. Does anyone know an appropriate speed setting for it? It is 2ghz 100MiBit. CPU will definitely be the limit. I think it should do 30kqps just fine. It’s a ways away but China needs it.
@iocc please add this last one to cn zone and take it out of everything else. It will score up in a bit.
For the moment the CN pool seems stable with around 20 servers.
I have experimented with different bandwidth settings and right now
with 20 working servers I get approx this amount of traffic for each
100 Mbit/s - 2000 KB/s
250 Mbit/s - 2800 KB/s
500 Mbit/s - 3500 KB/s
Around 4000 KB/s the VM starts to drop packets and cant keep up with
the packetrate so I will stay on 500 Mbit/s for now.
Its good to to have margins as spikes might come.
On my main CN zone server, I am seeing around 10mbps at the 1000mbps setting. Before the 20th of March, I was seeing as much as 30mbps. Current packet numbers are about 20kpps down from around 40kpps before the 20th.
For anyone who interested about this. This is some monitoring result from China yesterday. Thanks for your help, CN zone running well.
The problem now is delay: most server has delay more than 100ms. Still need server in China to solve it.
Theoretically we can have pool servers from other east Asian zones supporting China zone to achieve a lower latency for China users, however most Asian zones are in lack of pool servers, so it might not be a practical solution. I guess we still need to have a monitor inside China before we can really have pool servers inside China.
I guess I’m hard to please, but … This is about one of my servers, https://www.pool.ntp.org/scores/220.127.116.11
As you can see the score is (as of this writing) a perfect 20 so it’s not dropping any packets.
That server is configured to serve the .cn zone only and the bandwidth setting was at 384kbit/s. Last week I noticed that at the current rate I would not reach my bandwidth cap so I thought I’d increase its bandwidth setting in the pool. Raised it to 512kbit/s, waited a day, nothing seemed to happen. Then I raised it to 1 Mbit/s, nothing. The speed setting has been at 1000 Mbit/s for a few days now and I’m still getting pretty much as much traffic as I had at 384 kbit/s. Stats: http://biisoni.miuku.net/stats/ntppackets.html (see the Monthly graph from week 13 onwards).
While I think it’s generally good that I’m not hitting my bandwidth caps like I used to, I’m not sure if everything is working as it should if I can’t increase the amount of queries I get when I increase my bandwidth setting in the pool. I also have stats of when my server is included in the .cn zone and it’s showing expected results: http://biisoni.miuku.net/stats/cnparticipation.html
Has the situation in China improved this much recently? For the record, there are currently 20 servers in the .cn zone, which seems like a healthy amount.
I would think with 20 servers changing the BW setting should have some effect, but you have to realize that is still drastically underserved relative to the demand. So it could just be that no matter what the setting it is going to get utilized at a certain level to try and cope with all the queries.
Or Ask could have made some code changes specific to the CN zone… That is always a possibility.
Updated my `nf_conntrack’ to support a large amount of connections and https://www.ntppool.org/scores/18.104.22.168
seems to be keeping in the pools thus far and responding to about 15kqps at an 11 score just fine. This is causing a load average of about `.20’
Unless you are behind a NAT router, there is no need to up your nf_conntrack if you use the iptables raw notrack
sudo iptables -t raw -A PREROUTING -p udp --dport 123 -j NOTRACK sudo iptables -t raw -A PREROUTING -p udp --sport 123 -j NOTRACK sudo iptables -t raw -A OUTPUT -p udp --sport 123 -j NOTRACK sudo iptables -t raw -A OUTPUT -p udp --dport 123 -j NOTRACK