This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/ripe-atlas@ripe.net/
[atlas] [NTP measurements] Minimum offset if negative
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] [NTP measurements] Minimum offset if negative
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] [NTP measurements] Minimum offset if negative
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Philip Homburg
pch-atlas-ml at u-1.phicoh.com
Fri Jun 28 13:50:01 CEST 2024
In your letter dated Fri, 28 Jun 2024 13:24:21 +0200 you wrote: >On Fri, Jun 28, 2024 at 12:14:45PM +0200, > Philip Homburg <pch-atlas-ml at u-1.phicoh.com> wrote > a message of 11 lines which said: > >> In math. min(-2, -1) = -2 >> >> Why would that be different for offset? > >Because this is not Math 101 but NTP. You typically don't care about >the sign of the offset, only about its absolute value. So you want the smallest and largest absolute offset. You already get the minimum and maximum offset. So the maximum absolute offset should be easy to spot. Showing only the maximum absolute offset is not great. It is useful to know if on average probes are behind or ahead of the time source. Only showing absolute offsets doesn't show that. Why would you want to know the smallest absolute offset? That's just measuring noise.
- Previous message (by thread): [atlas] [NTP measurements] Minimum offset if negative
- Next message (by thread): [atlas] [NTP measurements] Minimum offset if negative
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]