On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Hal Murray <hmur...@megapathdsl.net> wrote:
> [pool limit of 100 ms] > > e...@thyrsus.com said: > > That's weird. Why would they have a precision requirement *above* > RFC5905's > > "A few tens of milliseconds"? You'd think they'd want it to be below > that. > > If you want time in the range of 10s of ms, you need to select the servers > you use. With something like the pool, you are likely to get a server on > the other side of the country with associated routing quirks. > > I think the goal of the pool project has always been good-enough rather > than great accuracy. 100 seems like a reasonable cutoff point to me. What > did you have in mind? > > Another consideration is that there is only one monitoring station. > >From reading their documentation, they monitor the pool candidates and report on their merit. The availability of the metrics could be better, but they are trying to ensure a minimum. Their goal is related to human-scale time. Also, I think their focus is spreading the load. BTW, I was getting within 5ms using generic ublox-7 puck (no PPS) on an old laptop. USB PPS (GR-601W) was reliably under 1ms. Clark
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
