On Dec 3, 3:34 am, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Woolley) wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > QueryPerformanceCounter() directly off the hardware. Windows > > scheduling has no impact here, the drawbacks of tick counts do not > > Windows scheduling will cause uncertainty in the time you get from > your SNTP requests which you use to calibrate the performance counters. > (It will also cause uncertainties in the time of whatever real world > event is associated with the times being recorded by your software.) >
Windows scheduling will NOT cause any bigger uncertainty than many other factors including network delays or scheduling on my Linksys router (probably Unix-like OS) that relays all my incoming/outgoing IP traffic. The most important thing is that my code will be able to measure fairly consistently the time between sending a request and receiving a reply for ***all*** servers in microseconds. I will use at least five servers. It would not be possible with TICKS but it is possible with high frequency counters because they operate on different principle as stated. This is the key difference!!! Consequently, it will be possible to estimate the drift of the PC counter and come up with servers' polling frequencies that satisfy my reqs for accuracy. So do not make it more complicated than it is. The rest belongs to the algorithims I will use and you do not know them, and I am not ready to discusss them. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions