On (2014-02-09 21:08 +0100), Andriy Bilous wrote:
Best practice is five. =) I don't remember if it's in FAQ on ntp.org or
David Mills' book. Your local clock is kind of gullible "push-over" which
will "vote" for the "party" providing most reasonable data. The algorithm
would filter out insane sources which run too far from the rest and then
group sane sources into 2 "parties" - your clock will follow the one
runners are closer to each other. That is why uneven number of
sources at least at start is required. With 2 sources you will blindly
follow the one which is closer to your own clock. You're also having the
the risk to degrade into this situation when you lose 1 out of 3 sources.
Four is again 2:2 and only with five you have a good chance to start
disciplining your clock into the right direction at the right pace, so
1 source is lost you (most probably) won't run into insanity.
I'm having bit difficulties understanding the issue with 4.
Is the implication that you have two groups which all agree with each other
reasonably well, but do not agree between the groups. Which would mean
cannot handle situation where 2 develop problem where they agree with each
other but are wrong.
But even in that case, you'd still recover from 1 of them being wrong. So
3 = correct time, no redundancy
4 = correct time, 1 can fail
5 = correct time, 2 can fail
and so forth?
But not sure here, just stabbing in the dark. For the fun of it, threw
to Mills, if he replies, I'll patch it back here.