On Fri, Aug 14, 2009 at 05:36:41AM +0000, David J Taylor wrote: > 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?
Not a chance, it is a limitation of kernel interface, choosen probably as a good compromise between resolution and range. Operating outside 500 ppm would require adjusting tick value (as chrony does), but that would considerably increase complexity of the code. Note that 100 ppm is not always exactly 1 tick. It depends on how is the clock implemented and configured in kernel and that is hard to find out in runtime. -- Miroslav Lichvar _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
