Hal Murray wrote: >> There is nothing per se that makes this system impossible to deliver 1ms. >> Of course it depends of where those clients are-- if they are at the bottom >> of the sea communicating with 1bd/sec ultralow frequency radio, you will >> not get 1ms precision. > > What's wrong with a (very) slow link? As long as there aren't any > queueing delays, the delay should be symmetric in both directions > and I'd expect ntpd to work OK.
A one baud link would have an uncertainty of a second in the time, unless the transmit time stamps were synchronised with the signalling units. It would also have a delay that was on the limits of causing rejection for a normal NTP implementation. A 1 bit/second link would definitely have an unacceptable delay. A 1 baud/second link would have a continually varying latency, and, unless the bits per signalling unit varied to compensate, a continually varying delay. I don't think baud/second was the intended unit. I suspect he was suggesting a 1 bit per signalling unit, 1 signalling unit per second, case. > > Does 1 bd/sec overflow some of ntpd's assumptions? Would it need > some minpoll tweaking? > > Or maybe I should ask: How slow a link is still useful? > _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
