On 2012-03-22, David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > "unruh" <un...@invalid.ca> wrote in message > news:uNJar.12581$qc3.8...@newsfe16.iad... > [] >>> 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. > > .. but until I see I won't know.
And if you saw it, how would you know? > > [] >> precision is not accuracy. > > and where did I say it was? > >> 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 hope you teach error estimation as well. > >> 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. > > Should you read what I wrote, including the bug report, perhaps you would > see that I was quite happy for the number of reported digits to depend on > the precision which NTP reports, but to keep things simple I suggested > using the same reporting precision as is used in the loopstats, The > present integer microseconds are no longer adequate for the faster and > better of today's NTP systems. If your system had a precision of -22, I could understand your annoyance that the reporting was just to usec. But since it is -19, I have much less understanding of why you are getting upset. That is what I am trying to figure out. You claim that if the report were say precision -22 you would get more useful information. I am having trouble following your reasoning. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
