On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 1:14 PM, Charles Swiger <cswi...@mac.com> wrote:
> On Feb 23, 2015, at 11:57 PM, David Woolley <david@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> > wrote: > > On 23/02/15 21:23, William Unruh wrote: > >> manual corrections are probably good to 1 sec. > > > > It's a long time since I did this, but 200ms is more like it > > However, if you time things with a rhythm you can get to ~50 ms or better > While these performance anecdotes are interesting they (starting with unruh@invalid) are all anecdotes. I didn't mention research and real numbers by accident. The underlying assertion is that the chrony method offers some value and is superior to NTPd. So I'd like something more than hand-waving regarding the performance and if it's better than just setting the clock once and a while I'll write something to create a drift file based on the operator listening to USNO ticks (or Emerald Time if you have it) and pressing return at the right time. Someone else can do a version that uses a microphone to listen to the ticks -- a stone-age ACTS driver. With regard to return on investment and underlying arguments about "advantages". I don't buy the "Well someone may want to do this so it's worthwhile" argument. Doing something foolish or stupid doesn't make Chrony better than NTPd. Or to put it another way -- NTPd is about precise time transfer and it protects you from falsetickers like your wristwatch. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions