[ntp:hackers] Does ntpd need to whine more ?
phk at phk.freebsd.dk
Mon Oct 3 16:23:34 UTC 2005
In message <43415079.6040803 at udel.edu>, "David L. Mills" writes:
>Your tone is dissapointing, but I am not going to argue with you.
>Please, and I am serious about this, take your reservations to the NTP
>WG and be heard.
If my tone is dissapointing (and/or dissappointed), then it is
because I have tried at various intervals over the last decade to
convince you that NTPD could do better and been told "it works great
in my simulator" with no appearant willingness to listen to dissenting
points of view, even when actual data is produced.
I'm proud that I managed to persuade you to take the step from micro
to nanoseconds but that seems to be as far as I could shift you.
This lack of progress is also to a large degree why I have pulled
out of active NTPD development and one of the reasons why I will
not spend my own time/money on NTP WG: Just like the PPS-API WG, I
expect it to be nothing but rubber stamping of the status quo with
no real intention to let new research and results affect the existing
>You didn't read my message. The requirement to use a crafted discipline
>algorithm applies only to an intermediate server with upstream sources
>and downstream clients.
It is still bogus to mandate one particular algorithm rather than
set up requirements for the performance. A good place to start
would be to document the pole/zero positions of the current code,
something I have yet to see anywhere.
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk at FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
More information about the hackers