On 2 June, 14:31, Brian Utterback <[email protected]> wrote: > David Woolley wrote: > > [email protected] wrote: > > >> In the case below, will server 3 be treated as a falseticker because > >> its offset lies outside the dispersion interval of the other two > >> servers even though there is some intersection between its dispersion > >> and that of server 2. > > > That's basically why I won't be convinced by the four server argument > > until I've checked the actual code. I seem to remember that there is an > > additional constraint, namely that the actual measurement must fall > > within the intersection. > > >> 1 > >> |--------+--------| > >> 2 > >> |----------+----------| > >> 3 |------------+------------| > > It's the other way around. The interval is expanded to include the > mid-points. So, even though the overlap between server 2 and 3 is that > small section, the interval actually used must include their > mid-points (i.e. their offsets) so the interval used in the downstream > calculations is the offset of server 2 through the offset of server 3
So the downstream servers reject server 1 as a falseticker as its offset falls outside that interval? They are then unable to select either of server 2 or server 3 as the synchronisation peer since the offset of each is at the extreme end of the intersection interval? _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
