> Actually, cosine with a much higher frequency might be the way to > beat the median filter.
If the only application of leap smear is to placate NTP, and if all NTP clients use the same hardcoded filter parameters, then, yes, by all means, find a higher, optimal frequency. But I would worry about defining a future leap smear specification based on legacy NTP parameters. And it begs the question -- if the choice of parameters for a proposed new universal smear standard are so rooted in NTP, why not just fix NTP in the first place? /tvb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <p...@phk.freebsd.dk> To: "Tom Van Baak" <t...@leapsecond.com>; "Leap Second Discussion List" <leapsecs@leapsecond.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 7:08 AM Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Bloomberg announced its smear > -------- > In message <5538148C9CFA4B1FACC82994D3371084@pc52>, "Tom Van Baak" writes: > >>Get down to the details about PC clock frequency instability and >>OS measurement jitter and I suspect you'll find that cosine vs. >>triangle is a red herring. > > Actually, cosine with a much higher frequency might be the way to > beat the median filter. > > -- > Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 > p...@freebsd.org | TCP/IP since RFC 956 > FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe > Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
