David,
I beg to seriously differ. To the extent the z transform of the impulse
response preserves the poles and zeros of the poplynomial
representation, the digital NTP loop behaves as an analog loop, at least
in the linear regime of operation.
The initial frequency estimate measures only the frequency offset; the
phase offset is left to fend for itsel, which could indeed result in an
initial offset exceeding the "overshoot" target. The purpose of the
state machine in the first place is to allow large initial poll
intervals, as with telephone modem services.
Look more carefully at the clock state machine. If the initial offset is
greater than the step threshold, the clock is set, which results in an
initial offset of zero. After the stepout interval the frequency is
measured and corrected, but the phase at that time could be quite large,
even greater than the step threshold, in which case the clock is set
again, resulting in no initial offset at all. On the other hand, if the
resulting offset when the frequency is measured is less than the step
threshold, ordinary linear mode results. This is NOT overshoot, just an
initial phase error.
If the initial offset is less than the step threshold, the freqjuency
measurement is made, but the phase is disciplined normally during the
stepout interval. Again, this could result in a phase offset after the
stepout interval, but this is NOT overshoot.
Dave
David Woolley wrote:
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (probably David Mills with an IT department that is
overzealous about preventing spam) wrote:
The modern NTP feedback loop is much more intricate than you report. It
is represented as a hybrid phase/frequency feedback loop with a
There may be various finesses, but it is still the essentially analogue
nature of the process that causes people to complain about overshoots
and runaway frequency excursions.
state-machine driven initial frequency measurement. Details are in the
As I understand it, the initial frequency measurement is only applied
when cold started (no ntp.drift). Moreover, the perceived problem being
reported here is about the initial phase correction. It is normal
to have to make phase corrections many times the mean phase error
on a restart, even though it isn't normal to have to do a signficant
frequency correction.
There are lots of nasty little approximations in the PLL/FLL code due to
imprecise measurement of some time intervals. While the design targe for
overshoot is 5-6 percent, I would not be surprised if in some cases it
is 10 percent.
I think the problem here is that a human trying to manually control the
effective frequency might have overshot by only 0.1%. They would have
slewed the phase in at the maximum acceptable rate and then made a
step change in frequency at the moment they crossed a measured phase
error of zero, stepping by minus the average rate of phase change
during the slew in. Only then would they start operating anything
like the current algorithm.
What they are seeing is 10% of the original error after about an hour,
when they know that they could have achieved 0.1% in under 10 minutes,
assuming a 500ppm slew rate limit. (They'd probably need some automation
to time the transition accurately enough to get to 100 microseconds, as
assumed here.)
The best way of implementing this is probably to provide the system with
memory about the likely phase measurement noise, but a simpler approach
of detecting the first zero crossing would probably work quite well.
_______________________________________________
questions mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
