On Sun, 10 Mar 1996 13:59:45 -0800  jonathan@dsg.stanford.edu wrote:

> I use 256.  There's a tradeoff between clock accuracy and cycles
> burnt in the clock handler.   64HZ works.  1024 Hz results in
> a noticeable fraction of late/lost interrupts on a 5k/240.
> 
> Between those limits, it's  up  to you...

I'm using 1024 HZ at the moment, and I'm seeing some wild time
variations.  With both an xntpd using the new ntp_* syscall interface,
and an old xntpd that uses adjtime, I get a 'previous time adjustment
didn't complete' message after every 'time reset' message.  I'm not
sure if the PLL has gotten itself in a mess or what's happening.  I'm
going to try 256 HZ this week to see if the problem disappears...

Simon.