"David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in news:dr_gm.67324$oo7.29...@text.news.virginmedia.com:
... >> 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. I fail to see the value or relevance of "500ppm satisfies 98% of computer clocks" if some other number, perhaps 5000 ppm, could satisfy yet even more than 98% of computer clocks with no downside - as indeed seems to be the case! Chrony, whatever its other merits and demerits, is an "existence proof" for this proposition. Regards, _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
