Unruh, I don't happen to own David Mill's book, but I understand what you are saying to be true. My concern is that too much data is being thrown away when polling above 256 seconds and that allows excessive wandering of my clock. Yes, I can cap the interval to 256, but is that the only answer? I would rather increase the interval of adjustments not the polling interval.
Regards, Ed > -----Original Message----- > From: questions-bounces+edward.mischanko=arcelormittal....@lists.ntp.org > [mailto:questions- > bounces+edward.mischanko=arcelormittal....@lists.ntp.org] On Behalf Of > unruh > Sent: Monday, May 20, 2013 3:14 PM > To: questions@lists.ntp.org > Subject: Re: [ntp:questions] Tighter regulation? > > On 2013-05-20, Mischanko, Edward T <edward.mischa...@arcelormittal.com> > wrote: > > Hello friends, > > > > Does anyone know what setting can be changed that will cause > > tighter regulation of the offset. My goal is to get clk_wander to > > equal as close to zero as possible more often. I would also like > > to see the frequency adjusted with every change in offset data; > > it currently does not appear to do that; it seems to be random. > > you need to read Mill's book. > a) ntpd uses only that meas of the last 8 that has smallest delay.-- ie > about 7 of every 8 meas are thewn away.That increases the time between > effective meas by a factor of about 8, > This is to handle the network jitter problem, and not knowing f the deay > is inbound or outbound. To get around thic decrease the poll interval. > (eg 10 to 7). > b) To bensure stability only a small fraction of the offset is sed to > alter the discipation. > > > I am monitoring a Windows XP client. > > > > Regards, > > Ed > > _______________________________________________ > questions mailing list > questions@lists.ntp.org > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
