"David J Taylor" <david-tay...@blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> writes:
>"Harlan Stenn" <st...@ntp.org> wrote in message >news:ywn9r5v87mp3....@ntp1.isc.org... >>>>> In article <ywn9ab1xrquz....@ntp1.isc.org>, Harlan Stenn >>>>> <st...@ntp.org> writes: >> >>>>> In article <h6dh6d$rg...@walton.maths.tcd.ie>, dwmal...@maths.tcd.ie >>>>> (David Malone) writes: >> David> Indeed - to push us back on track a little, here's a graph of the >> David> drift values from a few hundred machines: >> >> David> http://www.maths.tcd.ie/~dwmalone/time/drifts.png >> >> Harlan> Again, drift values are about the clock's *time*, and the 500ppm >> Harlan> slew limit is about the clock's *frequency*. >> >> I was, of course, insane when I wrote that. I misread and thought that >> offsets were being plotted, not drift file values (which are, indeed, >> the >> ppm frequency offsets). >> >> -- >> Harlan Stenn <st...@ntp.org> >> http://ntpforum.isc.org - be a member! >David's graph changed my view - from "is 500ppm too small?" to "500ppm is >not an unreasonable value". My thanks to all who have contributed. Of course my 9 machines with drift rates up to -250. It will depend crucially on which kernel David is running on his linux machines. I suspect is is older ( one tends not to keep clusters up to date). I used to have distributions like his. but not for the past two years. Anyway 50PPM is not unreasonable. It is also probably unnecessary. >Cheers, >David _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
