As we have server pages, may we have public monitor pages?
Fundamentally because I don’t want to incentivize unhelpful behavior from a monitor operator. We don’t want “good” results from each monitor, we just want … data. I didn’t figure out what to show that’d be most relevant.
As some of you pointed out, the system filters out servers from the same account, in the same IP network (and ASN? I forget). The intention is to maximize the accuracy from the perspective of an average (median?) NTP user.
The system tries to choose “active” monitors (those with higher frequency of checks) for each server based on those that are close and working well. The testing monitors are “backups” and the “candidates” are checked every so often to have extra “background data” (and to select the “testing” servers).
However, I’m pretty sure a bunch of the choices I made for timing and counts aren’t holding up to the large number (yay!) of monitors that have been setup. I’ve been working on moving the underlying database (for the whole system) to Postgres which I hope will clear up some database contention (and generally lessen the toil managing the database) so I haven’t looked too closely at it yet.
I am interested in specific ideas for what would be interesting to see for a monitor operator, beyond the basic counts. Again keep in mind that it’s important not to encourage comparison of which monitor is “better”. We want monitors across a diversity of locations and networks, not just the ones in “good” networks/locations.