[ntp:questions] Any chance of getting bugs 2164 and 1577 moving?

unruh unruh at invalid.ca
Wed Mar 21 15:29:18 UTC 2012


On 2012-03-21, David J Taylor <david-taylor at blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> "Harlan Stenn" <stenn at ntp.org> wrote in message 
> news:E1SA6uS-000Kpj-LY at stenn.ntp.org...
>> David wrote:
>>> 2164 needs discussion, unless altering the number of significant digits 
>>> in
>>> the ntpq output wouldn't break anything.  Do we need to have this
>>> discussion?  I have looked through ntpq.c, but I can't see where the
>>> number of decimal digits in the output for offset is set.
>>
>> I'd be inclined to do what we do for sntp, which is drive the number of
>> emitted digits based on the precision of the time.
>>
>> H
>
> Yes, I agree that makes sense.  I would wish to see at minimum the decimal 
> point and tenths of milliseconds.  On the system I want to monitor, the 
> precision is reported as -19, but the offsets need at least four decimal 

But -19 is about 2 microseconds if I understand it correctly. That means
that the clocks are incapable of delivering more than about 2
microseconds of accuracy. What is you  that last decimal digit of
accuracy in the offset is thus pure noise-- dominated by clock reading
noise. Why is it important for you then?


> places of milliseconds to be plotted with reasonable accuracy (i.e. tenths 
> of microseconds are needed).
>
> Cheers,
> David 
>



More information about the questions mailing list