Danny Mayer wrote: > Martin Burnicki wrote: >> Danny, >> >> Danny Mayer wrote: >>> Martin Burnicki wrote: >>>> Of course synchronization will be better if ntpd reaches an upstream >>>> server continuously, but still this is better than no synchronization >>>> at all ... >>>> >>> No it wouldn't. That's a fallacy. ntpd already oversamples. This is all >>> in the algorithms but sampling at the same rate provides no benefit and >>> it is better off reducing the sampling frequency once it has a stable >>> state. >> >> What I meant is not to decrease the polling interval. >> >> I meant to apply corrrections to the system time earlier. If you monitor >> the offset in ntpq -p then you can see often it takes very long untio an >> initial offset of a few milliseconds is started to be decreased. > > Again this is all in the algorithms. You need to take care about when > you apply the changes. ntpd tries to figure out whether or not a change > is an aberration or real and then needs to try and make sure it does not > overshoot. Don't forget you are getting values from a number of > different servers and if you switch preference from one server to > another you also end up potentially with perturbing the calculations.
If all the polling results indicate that the time is just off by a few milliseconds then this should be compensated quickly. I absolutely agree with Bill Unruh on this. Martin -- Martin Burnicki Meinberg Funkuhren Bad Pyrmont Germany _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
