>>> In article <tlsdnq2e26bblbnxnz2dnuvz_sydn...@giganews.com>, "Richard B. >>> Gilbert" <rgilber...@comcast.net> writes: Richard> I can't follow Dave's math but I'm reasonably sure that there is a Richard> good reason for the 500 PPM limit. Since almost all computer Richard> clocks can meet this criterion I'm not going to worry about it.
It's been a long time since I looked, but as I recall the 500ppm limit was chosen to be more than sufficient to handle the vast majority of non-broken hardware, and the value also plays a part in the "system constraints" and the Allan intercept. What I remember from the last time I looked at it was "changing the 500ppm constraint will mean a Lot Of Work for lots of other places, and it's really not worth the trouble." If that is really not the case for Windows, then somebody who has a much better "math brain" that I do should run all the numbers and propose an alternative. -- Harlan Stenn <st...@ntp.org> http://ntpforum.isc.org - be a member! _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
