Maarten Wiltink wrote: > Spoon wrote: > >> Maarten Wiltink wrote: >> >>> [...] could you monitor the buffer length and adjust frequency >>> on system B from that? If it's slowly draining, slow down B a little; >>> if it's growing, speed it up ever so slightly. Just like NTP does, >>> really. >> >> The very hard part (for me) is seeing that B's buffer is in fact slowly >> draining when there is a lot of jitter on the link between A and B. >> >> I've tried using an exponentially-weighted moving average to filter the >> jitter out, but it didn't work as well as I had hoped. That is when I >> turned to NTP. I'm trying not to reinvent the wheel. >> >> Are you saying I should use the theory in NTP but not the daemon? > > Well, not _all_ the theory. Just the basic idea of slowing down a fast > clock and speeding up a slow one. If it became too much work, I'd say > you're better off just adopting NTP, all of it. > > But the jitter problem is (in retrospect) obviously inevitable - if > you didn't have a jitter problem, you wouldn't have _any_ problem. > So you need to filter, and that's the first step towards a full, but > very roundabout, NTP implementation. > > Incidentally, IIAMN (and I've been before)
IIAMN? Did you mean IIANM (If I am not mistaken)? > NTP uses a median filter > to remove jitter. That throws away more information than a weighted > average, which in this case is a good thing. You might try that > before calling it a day. I will definitely try that! I wonder why I didn't think of it myself. Doh! :-) _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.ntp.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
