On 2012-02-13, Dave Hart <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 17:36, unruh <[email protected]> wrote: >> Uh, that is what ntp tries to do, and is why it shifts up its poll >> interval as time goes along ( and since it throws away 80% of >> measurments, the effective poll interval is about 8 times as long as the >> actual poll interval). > > s/effective poll interval/time constant/ > > That up to 8 x poll time constant is accounted for in the design. > There is no bug here. In fact, while you harp endlessly on this
I never claimed there was a bug. It is just incredibly profligate of precious measurements, but it exactly as designed. > point, it's due to the IMHO brilliant minimum delay clock filter which I guess brilliance is in the eye of the beholder. I consider it an incredibly crude kludge, but I guess to each his own. > very effectively sifts signal out of noise. ntpd is not going to rip > out the clock filter so it can whip around tracking noise as quickly > as possible. Please find somewhere else to relieve your bowels. Yes, I know, ntp has sacrificed speed of response for other concerns. The question is whether or not that sacrifice was the minimum needed and what the cost is. You and I clearly differ on that evaluation. > > Cheers, > Dave Hart _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
