Unruh wrote: > > 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
The claim was that the algorithm was low memory, not that the program was. The core of ntpd is the phase locked loop algorithm which has a memory of less than a half dozen variable, most of which are to do with adjusting the poll rate, whereas the core of chrony remembers a significant number of samples. ntpd compromises that low memory by remembering 8 samples of about 4 variables for each source, but its historic origins are from discrete hardware phase locked loops, where each variable cost an op amp and capacitor. > besides the algorithm used to correct the clocks. Note also that my tests The time correction algorithm uses very little code and not much memory. The program memory usage will be larger because ntpd has multiple clock drivers. Also, where it can, ntpd locks down all of its code, to try to avoid page faults. On recent Linux systems, at least, libc is severely bloated. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
