Miroslav,
I think we are talking right past each other. Both Chrony and NTP
implement the clock discipline using a second-order feedback loop that
can minimize error in both time and frequency, although each uses a
different loop filter. Chrony uses a least-squares technique; NTP uses a
traditional phase-lock loop. The response of these loops is
characterized by risetime and overshoot, or alternatively time constant
and damping factor. If Chrony were designed to have similar risetime and
overshoot characteristics and equivalent time constant, when operated
under the same conditions (trace 1) it will perform in a manner similar
to NTP. That was and is my claim.
I read your message very carefully and conclude you have done something
very similar to what I have. You generated phase noise from an
exponential distribution and verified it has slope -0.5 on a
variance-time plot, then generated random-walt frequency noise and
verified it has slope near zero on a variance-time plot or used some
other equivalent technique to verify the distributions. Using trial and
error you found appropriate factors to combine the phase and frequency
noise to produce an Allan variance characteristic similar to trace 1.
All this is not hard using Matlab, but you might have used something else.
The interesting thing to me is how you used that information to develop
the claim that Chrony is far better than NTP? To support your claim, you
would have to confront both Chrony and NTP with samples drawn from the
resulting distribution and compare statistics. The cumulative
probability distributions in Chapter 6 of my book were made using the
NTP simulator included in the NTP distribution. I assume you have
something similar.
It would be interesting to repeat the experiment with trace 3 and NTP
operating at a poll interval of 16 s..
Dave
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:10:08PM +0000, David L. Mills wrote:
A previous message implied that, once the Allan characteristic was
determined, it would show chrony to be better than ntpd. Be advised
the default time constant (at 64 s poll interval) was specifically
chosen to match trace 1 on the graph mentioned above.
Wasn't that rather for 16s poll interval? From simulations is seems
that the phase noise would have to be 10-30 times higher (or the
frequency noise lower, but that's unrealistic) to ntpd perform
well at 64s poll interval.
In other
words, it is in fact optimum for that characteristic and chrony can
do no better.
Well, it does better. With phase noise and random-walk frequency
corresponding to the trace 1 from your graph chrony is about 5 times
better than ntpd. With 30 times higher phase noise the difference is
only in order of tens of percent, but it's still better.
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
