>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * any slew adjustment in-process is under X (where X is configurable) David> I'm not sure that is a meaningful concept for ntpd. If ntpd does David> have an explicit concept of slewing, it would only be when correcting David> an error greater than 128ms, with stepping forbidden. If it does David> have such a state, I don't think being in the state would be enough David> to disqualify the time. I don't see your point. Regardless of the original reason, a given instance of ntpd may be applying a slew that will take "noticeable time" to complete. In the old days, I recall (and I could be mistaken) that ntpd would report its idea of the time that included any pending slew correction. I believe Dave fixed this, saying something like "now, ntpd does not lie about the time". If this is incorrect, please let me know and Ill be sure to document it. But the bottom line is that if ntpd is reporting the time on the machine and a slew is in progress, I think it is important *in the context of this thread* to be able to have ntpd say "I think the time is X and any correction I may be applying is under X". If this is not needed because the pending correction is included in some other statistic, that's fine too (and should be documented). -- Harlan Stenn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://ntpforum.isc.org - be a member! _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
