[ntp:questions] Meinberg NTP monitor, silly question
Richard B. Gilbert
rgilbert88 at comcast.net
Wed Dec 23 16:11:25 UTC 2009
> On 2009-12-22, David Woolley <david at ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> I do wish there were some way of speeding this up - a variable loop
>>> bandwidth or something like that.
>> It already does have one, and has had one since at least version 3.
> One problem ntp has its clock filter algorithm. It throws away 80% of
> the incoming data. (It accepts a new reading only if that new reading
> has a smaller delay than any of the last 8 readings. This effectively
> means that the time between measurements is 8 times the poll interval.
> Ie, if you have a poll interval of 6 (64 sec) the effective poll
> interval for ntpd is 8 min. And at poll interval 10, the effective
> interval is about 2 hr. the system certainly cannot respond to anything
> more rapidly than that, and must do so more slowly in order to remain
> stable. This is true even if the delay has a very small variance.
> Secondly because the only memory is contained in the rate, the system
> has no way of actually estimating the rate of the clock with respect to
> the remote clock. Ie, if the offset is positive, the rate is increased a
> bit, if negative, it is decreased a bit, and that's it. But there is far
> more information than that in the collection of offsets. With three
> offsets, one can both estimate the drift, and the uncertainlty in that
> drift. It is like walking down the street, staring only at i one square
> inch of the the sidewalk
> under your feet, and correcting when you see the curb in that 1 square
> inch, and the grass, as opposed to looking ahead and behind you.
> Note that the time scales ( 1hr for halving the error) I mentioned is
> for a poll interval of 4 (16 sec) .
So, have YOU written a program that works better? If so, why aren't you
using it instead of carping about the behavior of NTPD?
Have you even modified NTPD to make it work better? Tested your version
under a variety of conditions to demonstrate that it works better in all
reasonably probable circumstances?
I didn't think so!
More information about the questions