[ntp:questions] 500ppm - is it too small?

Ulrich Windl Ulrich.Windl at RZ.Uni-Regensburg.DE
Thu Nov 12 12:31:13 UTC 2009

"nemo_outis" <abc at xyz.com> writes:

> "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor at blueyonder.not-this-part.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
> news:dr_gm.67324$OO7.29050 at text.news.virginmedia.com: 
> ...
>>> The 500 PPM limit may be completely arbitrary but I suspect that it 
>>> includes a vast majority of computer clocks.
>> I think this is an excellent point.  It would be fascinating to see a 
>> histogram of computer clock frequency error, so that one could make a 
>> statement like "500ppm satisfies 98% of computer clocks" with some
>> degree of authority.  I'm not aware of any such data, though.
> I fail to see the value or relevance of "500ppm satisfies 98% of computer 
> clocks" if some other number, perhaps 5000 ppm, could satisfy yet even more 
> than 98% of computer clocks with no downside - as indeed seems to be the 
> case!  Chrony, whatever its other merits and demerits, is an "existence 
> proof" for this proposition.

You can use rdate inside a loop as well.

...and furniture industry should default to making 3-meter-beds to fit 100% of
the population in.


More information about the questions mailing list