On 2012-03-22, David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > "unruh" <un...@invalid.ca> wrote in message > news:xLHar.38386$iq1.34...@newsfe18.iad...
> [] >> Measure what? Why do you think that ntp reporting the offset with an >> extra three decimal points would allow you to measure anything? What in >> your mind would you expect to see in that output that would allow you to >> "measure" something that would tell you that the -19 was wrong? Remember >> ntpd DID measure something in order to determine that -19. What do you >> think the extra decimal places would give you? > > Most likely I would be looking at a histogram of the reported offsets, and > see whether it was gaussian, flat, or whatever, and how wide. I might > learn something from that. No. Not if it is just noise. > > Others have reported precisions better than -19, and also have a need for > greater reporting precision. That is a valid issue. > > There seems to be an impression out there that I'm trying to show > something is wrong - I'm not. I suggested an enhancement so that the > precision of ntpq matched that of the loopstats. That's all. precision is not accuracy. In science we teach students not to report unwarranted precision-- the precision should reflect the accuracy of the measurements. We keep getting measurements to the mm and reported precision to angstoms because that was what the calculator spit out. I am not averse to reporting with a precion maybe up to a factor of 10 better than the accuracy, but any more is just silly and misleading (as you are demonstrating in believing that a greater precision would convey some extra information. > > David > _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions