"Richard B. Gilbert" <[email protected]> writes: >Unruh wrote: >> David Woolley <[email protected]> writes: >> >>> [email protected] wrote: >> >>>> This algorithm is robust because it is based on >>>> special techniques (it uses common packets in the traces to provide >>>> synchronisation). >> >>> In the end, any such algorithm is going to have to use techniques >>> similar to ntpd or chrony's. The one advantage is that it is >>> retrospective, and therefore probably better matches chrony's linear >>> regression approach. (NTP uses a low memory, incremental algorithm.) >> >> That is why ntp has a VSZ of 4460 vs 2189 for chrony and RSS of 940 vs 748 >> for chrony:-) >>
>VSZ??? >RSS??? >It would be helpful if you would define your terms! Sorry. Output of gnu ps command. VSZ-- Virtual memory size of the process in KiB. RSS- Resident set size, the non-swappagle physical memory that a task has used. Ie contrary to the claim, chrony is actually smaller than ntp both in total memory used and in resident memory. There could be many reasons for this besides the algorithm used to correct the clocks. Note also that my tests showed that chrony is about a factor of 2-3 times better than ntp at disciplining the clock and about a factor of 50 times faster in initially disciplining the clock and settling down to steady state. It's chief disadvantages are no refclock support, and it runs only on Linux. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
