Nero Imhard <n...@pipe.nl> writes: >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. And you miss the point-- ntp itself should be doing that. It is a program that is supposed to discipline the clock. It should not ask you to do part of its job. >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