On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Eugene Smiley wrote: > Anthony DeRobertis wrote: >> Have you tried the huff-n'-puff filter? Or for that matter, playing with >> the Allan intercept? >> >> http://www.cis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/ntpd.html >> http://www.cis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/miscopt.html >> http://www.cis.udel.edu/~mills/database/brief/algor/algor.ppt > > Or discussed this on a list where this would get more attention?
I said I read the list, some other guy wanted to do the same for other reasons with no avail. The title of my message was "Tip for more precise ntpd ?" which means it is intended to provide a tip for pool servers admin that may find it useful. I gave up long ago on requesting ntpd changes. Ntpd is simply not designed for modern networks with asymmetrical delays. I would be more in favor of a complete re-write but this is another story. You can still use ntpd for pool services requiring +-100 ms but as demonstrated, it is easy to do better than the current ntpd implementation quite easily. Cheers, > > http://groups.google.com/group/comp.protocols.time.ntp/topics > _______________________________________________ > timekeepers mailing list > [email protected] > https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers > Louis http://blogtech.oc9.com http://www.pool.ntp.org/scores/207.236.226.149 _______________________________________________ timekeepers mailing list [email protected] https://fortytwo.ch/mailman/cgi-bin/listinfo/timekeepers
