[ntp:questions] So what? (Re: 500ppm - is it too small?)

nemo_outis abc at xyz.com
Wed Aug 19 21:17:16 UTC 2009


Harlan Stenn <stenn at ntp.org> wrote in
news:ywn98whf205c.fsf at ntp1.isc.org: 

>>>> In article <Xns9C6C61550389Bpqwertyu at 69.16.185.247>, "nemo_outis"
>>>> <abc at xyz.com> writes: 
> 
> nemo> No, it means that if you have a program that has been
> arbitrarily nemo> diddled so that it WILL NOT ATTEMPT to correct a
> frequency error nemo> greater than "x" then, oddly enough, it CAN'T.
> 
> In ntp's case, it means that it will correct up to the limit of
> 500ppm. 
> 
> nemo> A clock with a frequency deviation is NOT, per se, broken.  If
> the nemo> deviation, even if it be, say, 5000 ppm, is consistent,
> stable and nemo> regular, then the clock could be a superb timekeeper.
> 
> Agreed, and that's what the tickadj program is for - it gives a way to
> adjust the base tick value, and this can be use to make sure the clock
> frequency is within the range where ntp's 500ppm "vernier" range.
> 
> As for your other coments, I'd like to see a ground-up rewrite (or at
> least a refactoring) of the NTP codebase.  One of the things I'd like
> it to do is to allow different "timing engines" to be used.  One would
> be the RFC engine.  My goal here is to encourage and make it as easy
> as possible to test and understand other techniques for accurate
> timekeeping. 
> 
> H


Thank you for your moderate and rational response to my - ahem! - 
somewhat overheated reaction to "Nero Imhard's" provocative but 
uninformative reopening of issues that had been largely addressed.

I'm a bit embarrassed for having so eagerly taken the bait from an 
obvious troll.

Regards,




More information about the questions mailing list