nemo_outis wrote: > A clock with a frequency deviation is NOT, per se, broken. If the > deviation, even if it be, say, 5000 ppm, is consistent, stable and > regular, then the clock could be a superb timekeeper.
Yes of course, but you miss the point (or at least my point). Such a large deviation can easily be corrected for *before* ntp gets to sync the clock. Again, the margin into which you should tune your clock rate is a matter of taste and quite arbitrary. But since you are pushing it, here's my personal take: I deem it reasonable to require a clock's frequency error to be in the same ballpark as (let's say at most one order of magnitude larger than) its instability. Anything larger should be (and is in fact easily) tuned out through other means than ntp's clock discipline. 500 is *huge* already. I'm not versed in the theory enough to make any assertions about how a large frequency error affects behaviour and performance of the clock disciplining algorithm, but my gut feeling tells me it's better to have a small frequency error. If someone who does know these things convincingly tells me otherwise, I'll gladly adjust my opinion. For the moment, I trust my gut. N _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
