[ntp:questions] strange behaviour of ntp peerstats entries.

David L. Mills mills at udel.edu
Sun Feb 3 05:14:15 UTC 2008


David,

We are talking right past each other and are not having a productive 
discussion. Tge best choice for me is just to shut up.

Dave

David Woolley wrote:

> David L. Mills wrote:
> 
>> Guys,
>>
>> This is really silly. The Unruh agenda is clear. Should you choose to 
> 
> 
> I think you replied to the wrong node in the thread.  I think what you 
> are actually doing is telling Steve that he shouldn't be asking for 
> these changes to included in ntpd at all.
> 
> Also, I don't think Unruh's position is clear to many of the regulars; 
> they are simply using it to promote their standard positions, whether it 
> be joining a developers' group, or not using Linux.
> 
> 
>> limit the application space to fast local networks, the chrony choice 
> 
> 
> The impression I'm getting is that extends beyond local networks to 
> include most sources that would be used by fixed, land based, 
> installations, in the first world, at least.
> 
>> may or may not be optimal. Should you extend this space to the raunchy 
>> global Internet, conviction will require diligent testing and 
>> analysis. There is no clear evidence the chrony algorithms are 
>> sufficiently agile to osicllator wander over the long term and I see 
>> no response to this issue.
> 
> 
> Long term wander is easy to cope with, unless you run out of adjustment 
> range.  I don't see why chrony should have any lower a limit on that 
> than ntpd's.  On the other hand, the evidence is mounting that chrony is 
> much better at handling non-random diurnal wander.
> 
>>
>> Dave
>>
>> David Woolley wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Kostecke wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's nothing stopping him from implementing what he considers to 
>>>> be a
>>>> solution himself. He could even distribute his modified version of NTP
>>>> to anyone who wanted to use it.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Why should he do that when something already exists, although it is 
>>> not technically NTP?  As I see it, he is trying benefit ntpd by 
>>> encouraging it to behave as well as the alternative that he is using.
>>>
>>> There are two ways that people can vote by actions:
>>>
>>> 1) to implement the features in the (open source) original;
>>> 2) to switch to an alternative that already has the behavour they 
>>> consider desirable.
>>>
>>> You cannot say that the criticism is invalid because people choose 
>>> op;tion (2).
>>>
>>> There is also a number (3), which is to be aware that there is a 
>>> problem but be prepared to live with it.  I'm probably in that category.
>>>
>>> There is probably also 1a, which is what resulted in the alternative, 
>>> which is to implement a competitor, more or less from scratch, which 
>>> only has the features one considers important.




More information about the questions mailing list