Re: ✘sys_fuzz * ntp_random()

2017-01-26 Thread Gary E. Miller
Yo Achim! On Thu, 26 Jan 2017 19:30:12 +0100 Achim Gratz wrote: > If you had a non-quantized signal to start with you wouldn't need to > add noise in the first place. In the digital world all measurements are quantized. All you can do is make the quant really small. RGDS

Re: ✘sys_fuzz * ntp_random()

2017-01-26 Thread Achim Gratz
Kurt Roeckx writes: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:38:50PM +0100, Achim Gratz wrote: >> sys_fuzz (which whitens the quantization noise on the clock reading) >> doesn't make a difference or you might not. But presumably Dave Mills >> didn't put it in there just because he was trying to add useless

Re: ✘sys_fuzz * ntp_random()

2017-01-25 Thread Gary E. Miller
Yo All! To follow up on my own mistake... On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 16:52:58 -0800 "Gary E. Miller" wrote: > Xeon: fuzz=0.000202, tick=0.000202 > skylake: fuzz=0.000109, tick=0.000109 > RasPi:fuzz=0.003,tick=0.003 > RasPi2: fuzz=0.001823, tick=0.001823

Re: ✘sys_fuzz * ntp_random()

2017-01-25 Thread Gary E. Miller
Yo Kurt! On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 00:01:43 +0100 Kurt Roeckx wrote: > On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:38:50PM +0100, Achim Gratz wrote: > > sys_fuzz (which whitens the quantization noise on the clock reading) > > doesn't make a difference or you might not. But presumably Dave > > Mills

Re: ✘sys_fuzz * ntp_random()

2017-01-25 Thread Kurt Roeckx
On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 10:38:50PM +0100, Achim Gratz wrote: > sys_fuzz (which whitens the quantization noise on the clock reading) > doesn't make a difference or you might not. But presumably Dave Mills > didn't put it in there just because he was trying to add useless code. So it seems to me

Re: ✘sys_fuzz * ntp_random()

2017-01-25 Thread Gary E. Miller
Yo Achim! On Wed, 25 Jan 2017 18:36:13 +0100 Achim Gratz wrote: > Gary E. Miller writes: > > Dr. Mills did not put it there. This was added in 2011 by Dave > > hart. See my previous email that probably crossed by yours in > > flight. > > The way I read things, Dave Hart's

Re: ✘sys_fuzz * ntp_random()

2017-01-25 Thread Achim Gratz
Gary E. Miller writes: > Dr. Mills did not put it there. This was added in 2011 by Dave hart. > See my previous email that probably crossed by yours in flight. The way I read things, Dave Hart's patches were to ascertain monotonicity on top of the already existing fuzzing. > It proves that

Re: ✘sys_fuzz * ntp_random()

2017-01-24 Thread Gary E. Miller
Yo Eric! On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 16:42:42 -0500 "Eric S. Raymond" wrote: > Achim Gratz : > > You might have enough other noise in any particular system so the > > sys_fuzz (which whitens the quantization noise on the clock reading) > > doesn't make a difference

Re: ✘sys_fuzz * ntp_random()

2017-01-24 Thread Gary E. Miller
Yo Eric! On Tue, 24 Jan 2017 15:44:17 -0500 "Eric S. Raymond" <e...@thyrsus.com> wrote: > Gary E. Miller <g...@rellim.com>: > > Otherwise sys_fuzz * ntp_random() is more poinltess noise in the > > code we can rip out. > > I would consider

Re: ✘sys_fuzz * ntp_random()

2017-01-24 Thread Eric S. Raymond
Gary E. Miller <g...@rellim.com>: > Otherwise sys_fuzz * ntp_random() is more poinltess noise in the code we > can rip out. I would consider this good news, especially since that code is in the critical section. -- http://www.catb.org/~esr/;>Eric S. Raymond

✘sys_fuzz * ntp_random()

2017-01-24 Thread Gary E. Miller
zz to zero on one of them. Four days later I can see no difference in the results from those two. Can anyone find a case were adding the randomness can be proved to help? We already have all the guesses we need, anyone have any data? Otherwise sys_fuzz * ntp_random() is more poinltess noise in t