Harlan, Get down to the details about PC clock frequency instability and OS measurement jitter and I suspect you'll find that cosine vs. triangle is a red herring.
I would almost vote for random smear. The purpose of a smear is to obscure the extra / missing second in UTC. If someone downstream wants to know *how you implemented the smear* you have already lost the battle. It means they secretly want to know real UTC instead of accepting your smeared UTC. This is a problem. Smearing is for clients that don't care about the arcane details of UTC, or about sub-second accuracy, but maybe still want a monotonic clock that's pretty close to UTC and the SI second most of the time. /tvb ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harlan Stenn" <st...@ntp.org> To: "Leap Second Discussion List" <leapsecs@leapsecond.com> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2016 5:24 AM Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS] Bloomberg announced its smear > Martin, > > Cosine smearing might need to be a choice. It's harder to track the > leap second if you get a sample during when both phase and frequency are > changing. > > -- > Harlan Stenn <st...@ntp.org> > http://networktimefoundation.org - be a member! _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
