"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net> wrote in news:tlsdnq2e26bblbnxnz2dnuvz_sydn...@giganews.com:
> nemo_outis wrote: ... >> I fail to see the value or relevance of "500ppm satisfies 98% of >> computer clocks" if some other number, perhaps 5000 ppm, could >> satisfy yet even more than 98% of computer clocks with no downside - >> as indeed seems to be the case! Chrony, whatever its other merits >> and demerits, is an "existence proof" for this proposition. > I can't follow Dave's math but I'm reasonably sure that there is a > good reason for the 500 PPM limit. Since almost all computer clocks > can meet this criterion I'm not going to worry about it. Hmm, "faith-based" ntp? Not for me. If there is a "good reason" I'd like to hear it - 500 ppm has the smell of arbitrariness about it. > If you have a computer with a frequency error of more than 500 PPM, > you can either get it fixed or hack the ntpd code to allow +/- 600 or > 6000 or whatever PPM. Of course, one can hack the code. But one should not have to do this to overcome arbitrarily-imposed unjustified constraints. That Chrony can manage much more than 500 ppm may not not be absolutely probative in this regard but it sure is strongly indicative. Regards, _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
