"Richard B. Gilbert" <> wrote in message news:-zkdnagr0u362bnxnz2dnuvz_ogdn...@giganews.com... [] > Do you disagree with the 500 PPM limit? 500 PPM works out to 43 seconds > per day. A clock that gains or loses that much time every day has to be > considered seriously broken! Plus or minus 50 PPM, or less, is typical. > > I suppose that someone could change the limit to 1000 PPM or even > 10,000PPM. Would that be the right thing to do? Why?
No, I don't disagree or agree with 500ppm - simply asking whether or not people felt there was any mileage in using a somewhat larger value. > The 500 PPM limit may be completely arbitrary but I suspect that it > includes a vast majority of computer clocks. I think this is an excellent point. It would be fascinating to see a histogram of computer clock frequency error, so that one could make a statement like "500ppm satisfies 98% of computer clocks" with some degree of authority. I'm not aware of any such data, though. Cheers, David _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
