[ntp:questions] 500ppm - is it too small?
Ulrich.Windl at RZ.Uni-Regensburg.DE
Thu Nov 12 12:39:56 UTC 2009
"nemo_outis" <abc at xyz.com> writes:
> "Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net> wrote in
> news:poydnd1spod4pBTXnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d at giganews.com:
>> I still haven't seen any argument that supporting a value greater than
>> 500 PPM is worth the trouble!
> I still haven't seen any evidence that there is much trouble - only
> anticipatory speculative whinging.
Think about the existing kernel implementations!
> Nor, for that matter, has there been much other than speculation and vague
> anecdotal recollections that the 500 ppm limit *may* have had some
> justification and not been entirely arbitrary.
Let's do it like IPv6: With NTPv6 lets move to 128bit timestamps. Then
you'll get your 96 bits worth frequency error. The a few people will
surely complain why somebody chose that arbitrary limit ;-)
> This doesn't inspire much confdence about the documentation of the
> architecture and design decisions regarding ntp.
More information about the questions