On 2011-12-13, Harlan Stenn <[email protected]> wrote: > Richard wrote: > [much elided] > >> Like it or not, NTPD, when started, will need up to TEN HOURS to >> settle down with the best time that you are going to get! This is not >> a hardship if you run NTPD 24x365 (366 in leap years). If you have to >> shutdown frequently and can't wait for NTPD to reach steady state then >> NTP is the wrong tool for you! > > You say this as if it is necessarily a bad thing.
If it were the only way of ensuring good timing, it would not be. It is not. It is an extremely primative feedback loop, which IMHO wastes a huge amount of information in the data. And the slowness of the settling down initially is just the other side of ntpd's poor handling of changes in the clock frequency ( due for example to heating because of the computer suddenly having to do some heavy computing). > > NTP is *careful* about choosing reference time. It acts conservatively. In some ways, yes, in some ways it is extremely profligate. > > There are a bunch of folks who consider this to be a feature. > > Are you implying that before ntpd gets "the best time that you are going > to get" that the actual time on the box is inadequate? It has a much larger displacement from the true time than it needs to have. I suppose it depends on what you want. > > In that interim, is the time "bad" or are the error numbers just > shrinking? > _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
