"nemo_outis" <a...@xyz.com> wrote in message [] > 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. > > Regards,
Oh, simply that have knowledge of how many computers were excluded at a particular value of maximum drift might allow the NTP designer to make a better judgement of just where to set that arbitrary 500ppm number. For example, if 100ppm excluded 50% it would obviously be a poor choice, and it 500ppm includes 99.999% of computers it could be an excellent choice. As it is, in a community of end users perhaps one or two out of about a hundred have reported problems with NTP as supplied, and it seems a shame to exclude them if a small relaxation in the tolerance might allow them to run NTP rather than them having the view "NTP doesn't work". No chance of the limit being a command-line parameter, I suppose? Cheers, David _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
