On Mon, Jul 05, 2004 at 04:30:33AM -0500, Frederick Bruckman wrote:
> Hey, is your frequency changed after clock.c 1.83-1.84? My best
> timekeeper fell from ~157 to ~143 in 8 hours, and still falling.
> That's not bad, by itself, but together with the "too stiff" issue,
> it could lead to more problem reports.

I don't know what it used to be..

status=06f4 leap_none, sync_ntp, 15 events, event_peer/strat_chg,
version="ntpd 4.2.0-r Sat Jul  3 19:47:24 BST 2004 (1)",
processor="i386", system="NetBSD/2.0G", leap=00, stratum=3,
precision=-19, rootdelay=10.394, rootdispersion=94.668, peer=24069,
refid=129.169.8.25,
reftime=c493db2a.fc432ca5  Mon, Jul  5 2004 14:50:34.985, poll=10,
clock=c493df19.505ab3aa  Mon, Jul  5 2004 15:07:21.313, state=4,
offset=-1.376, frequency=5.501, jitter=0.895, stability=0.008

status=06f4 leap_none, sync_ntp, 15 events, event_peer/strat_chg,
processor="i386", system="NetBSD1.6F", leap=00, stratum=3,
precision=-17, rootdelay=11.287, rootdispersion=46.717, peer=61069,
refid=129.169.8.25,
reftime=c493de13.ca428d43  Mon, Jul  5 2004 15:02:59.790, poll=10,
clock=c493df27.c2c93a71  Mon, Jul  5 2004 15:07:35.760, state=4,
phase=-0.113, frequency=9.349, jitter=0.531, stability=0.001

So the older (1.6F up for 70 days) box has a higher frequency (9) than the
new since yesterday box (5), but given they are 2 orders of magnitude
lower than your ~150, either we are talking different frequencies, or
my data isn't significant..

Cheers,

Patrick