On Mon, 03 Jul 2006 12:59:43 PDT, john stultz said:
> On Sun, 2006-07-02 at 18:56 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-07-03 at 03:13 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > I was reviewing these new ntp adjustment functions, and it seems like it
> > would be a lot easier to just switch to a better clocksource. These new
> > functions seems to compensate for a clock that has a high rating but is
> > actually quite poor..
> 
> Not quite. The issue is that the adjustment that the ntpd makes is quite
> fine grained, and some clocksources while quite stable, might not be
> able to make such a fine adjustment. So the extra error accounting just
> allows us to keep track and compensate for the resolution differences.
> 
> Does that make sense?

Except for the fact that NTP isn't running yet when I see this trouble...