A computer components & hardware forum. HardwareBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » HardwareBanter forum » General Hardware & Peripherals » Homebuilt PC's
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What's the difference between these two memories ?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old December 27th 18, 09:54 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Shadow[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 195
Default What's the difference between these two memories ?

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 14:51:48 -0500, Flasherly
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 08:42:23 -0200, Shadow wrote:

Sorry Flasherly, I got lost after the first phrase.
I sync to an atomic clock on startup, so it should be within
half a second of "real" time at the end of the day. But I can live
with 30 seconds off.
I was worried it might be hardware failure, but since Linux
does not have the glitch, I'm pretty sure it's just XP having fits
with the amount of CPU and memory at its disposal.


The first written phrase, I provided, corresponds to after your
startup, and that is specific to Dimension 4, in the user settings,
for defining how often Dimension 4 performs an Atomic Clock
synchronization.

The Dimension 4 polling interval, I checked, just after the prior
post, and I've determined that my computer is about 8 seconds faster
than a standalone La Crosse radio receiver atomic clock, on the wall,
behind this monitor.

But the whole point is that if you can go beyond an OS start-up
synchronization event, a more frequent interval timed synchronization
may improve your computer's chronographic accuracy.

OK...checking with the second hand to the Casio. This is my watch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:C...ave_Ceptor.jpg

I'm about 4 seconds fast on the computer, thus my computer is not as
accurate as the Casio. (I've checked the Casio to other standards,
such as a short-wave band radio receiver and England's "Big Ben" timed
broadcast. So my computer is not within 4 seconds near to a
chronograph, nor is Windows or, apparently, Dimension 4.) Checking
the BIOS clock may also be an indicated course to account;- as might
running Linux shed further light on narrowing in on a cause of the
discrepancy for accurate time keeping.

Between a computer crystal-derived signal reference and a WEB software
interface to poll a reference Atomic Clock server, there's no excuse
for this behavior. I believe it would be safe to assume, that you not
build such as a rocket-ship to blast off to the moon, not if you're
designing that trajectory based on a computer's ability to keep timed
accuracy.


Oh, it's a freeware time-sync utility. I thought you were
talking about science fiction.

So is Neutron.

http://keir.net/neutron.html

7Kb small, and has an INI file so you can change the servers.
(the included ones are not working). If the first server doesn't
respond it tries the second, etc, for a total of 14.
I can give you my list if you want.
Keir writes good software.
[]'s

--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
  #22  
Old December 28th 18, 02:07 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default What's the difference between these two memories ?

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 18:54:56 -0200, Shadow wrote:


Oh, it's a freeware time-sync utility. I thought you were
talking about science fiction.

So is Neutron.

http://keir.net/neutron.html

7Kb small, and has an INI file so you can change the servers.
(the included ones are not working). If the first server doesn't
respond it tries the second, etc, for a total of 14.
I can give you my list if you want.
Keir writes good software.
[]'s


I'd have asked if you tried decreasing a N Interval to poll for a
lower integer (more often) than a default periodicity, or manually,
but there may not be that provision if there's nothing more to
configure it than the illustration.
http://keir.net/resources/scrn_neutron.png

I'd personally want that feature automated - within a definable N
Integer - as a part of a clock-aide program options. Or, you may
simply write it yourself, perhaps easily enough, with AUTOIT scripting
language for Windows.

Fiction occurs as an assumption of limitations, that a computer is a
instrument of capabilities to measure time at some discrepancy from a
scientific principle atomic clocks provide.

Yet computers may perhaps play that role in specialized instances. In
data network transfers as a part of secure protection protocols
augmented to account a high-precision timing event. Perhaps augmented
with specialty time-references or equipment outside of a common
desktop build. I wouldn't rule it out offhand.

.. . .

Temperature is still only part of the story. Thermal noise is the
ultimate limitation on crystal oscillator performance (crystals are by
far the most common type of "digital clock").

The crystal itself has Brownian noise due to dissipative effects of
air resistance, anchor loss, and thermoelastic damping. Brownian noise
creates a random force that acts to disturb the crystal vibration.
This force creates random fluctuations in the exact oscillation
frequency of the crystal. The electronic oscillator circuit
responsible for compensating for the energy dissipation due to
mechanical damping also adds noise that has essentially the same
effect.

This still isn't quite the whole picture. Random changes in frequency
lead to a random walk in the period between two zero crossings. You
can think of this process as what happens when you flip a quarter and
keep track of the total heads and tails count. The odds of any flip
giving heads or tails is 50%. If you add 1 to your count for every
head and subtract one for every tail, the standard deviation of the
count is unbounded as time increases toward infinity. Similarly,
random fluctuations in the oscillation frequency "accumulate" over
time to lead to timing drift of the reference.


https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/win.../accurate-time

Impact of increased polling and clock update frequency

In order to provide more accurate time, the defaults for polling
frequencies and clock updates are increased which allow us to make
small adjustments more frequently. This will cause more UDP/NTP
traffic, however, these packets are small so there should be very
little or no impact over broadband links. The benefit, however, is
that time should be better on a wider variety of hardware and
environments.

For battery backed devices, increasing the polling frequency can cause
issues. Battery devices don’t store the time while turned off. When
they resume, it may require frequent corrections to the clock.
Increasing the polling frequency will cause the clock to become
unstable and could also use more power. Microsoft recommends you do
not change the client default settings.

Domain Controllers should be minimally impacted even with the
multiplied effect of the increased updates from NTP Clients in an AD
Domain. NTP has a much smaller resource consumption as compared to
other protocols and a marginal impact. You are more likely to reach
limits for other domain functionality before being impacted by the
increased settings for Windows Server 2016. Active Directory does use
secure NTP, which tends to sync time less accurately than simple NTP,
but we’ve verified it will scale up to clients two stratum away from
the PDC.

As a conservative plan, you should reserve 100 NTP requests per second
per core. For instance, a domain made up of 4 DCs with 4 cores each,
you should be able to serve 1600 NTP requests per second. If you have
10k clients configured to sync time once every 64 seconds, and the
requests are received uniformly over time, you would see 10,000/64 or
around 160 requests/second, spread across all DCs. This falls easily
within our 1600 NTP requests/sec based on this example. These are
conservative planning recommendations and of course have a large
dependency on your network, processor speeds and loads, so as always
baseline and test in your environments.

It is also important to note that if your DCs are running with a
considerable CPU load, greater than 40%, this will almost certainly
add noise to NTP responses and affect your time accuracy in your
domain. Again, you need to test in your environment to understand the
actual results.
  #23  
Old December 28th 18, 11:29 AM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Shadow[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 195
Default What's the difference between these two memories ?

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 20:07:37 -0500, Flasherly
wrote:

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 18:54:56 -0200, Shadow wrote:


Oh, it's a freeware time-sync utility. I thought you were
talking about science fiction.

So is Neutron.

http://keir.net/neutron.html

7Kb small, and has an INI file so you can change the servers.
(the included ones are not working). If the first server doesn't
respond it tries the second, etc, for a total of 14.
I can give you my list if you want.
Keir writes good software.
[]'s


I'd have asked if you tried decreasing a N Interval to poll for a
lower integer (more often) than a default periodicity, or manually,
but there may not be that provision if there's nothing more to
configure it than the illustration.
http://keir.net/resources/scrn_neutron.png

I'd personally want that feature automated


You could just use Task Scheduler, though I don't like it
running in the background, so I disabled the service.

http://www.blackviper.com/windows-se...ask-scheduler/
[]'s
--
Don't be evil - Google 2004
We have a new policy - Google 2012
  #24  
Old December 28th 18, 01:18 PM posted to alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt
Flasherly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,407
Default What's the difference between these two memories ?

On Fri, 28 Dec 2018 08:29:01 -0200, Shadow wrote:

You could just use Task Scheduler, though I don't like it
running in the background, so I disabled the service.

http://www.blackviper.com/windows-se...ask-scheduler/


Learning an OS well enough to get around can seem at times less
daunting than defending or hardening it. And getting around, in the
case of Microsoft, has been as much better left to 3rd-party
developers, generously approximated by free or near program utilities.
Hardly an ingenuous claim or premise when, subsequently abandoned or
rendered obsolete from manipulation by tech industry, intent on
wholesaling individuals into an advertising market of cornered cattle
yards stocked with handheld-sets of social media.

Auto-It is somewhat elegant for running on top of Microsoft in a
script form. I've even run into programs, subsequently distributed
for freeware, written initially within Auto-It language conventions,
as is adequately explained within the distribution source for an
included documentary file. A recursive call to an timed event and a
configuration allowance for a clean exit should be relatively simple;-
worst that could happen is it could get "gummy" during an OS shutdown.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
8x8, 16x16, 1M x 36 P -ram memories Majki Majk General 2 November 28th 08 06:53 AM
RLP memories Guillaume Dargaud General 0 September 23rd 08 07:47 PM
Using different types of DDR memories together Hamza General 1 August 25th 07 06:56 AM
2 memories 256 MB and 512 MB thewhitebsd General 2 January 28th 05 02:40 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 HardwareBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.