On 08.02.2015 19:54, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: > 01.02.2015 03:43, Georg Chini wrote: >> + /* Minimum number of adjust times + 1 needed to adjust at 0.75% >> deviation from base rate */ >> + min_cycles = (double)abs(latency_difference) / u->adjust_time / >> 0.0075 + 1; >> + >> + /* Rate calculation, maximum deviation from base rate will be >> less than 0.75% due to min_cycles */ >> + new_rate = base_rate * (1.0 + latency_difference / min_cycles / >> u->adjust_time) + 0.5; > > What's the aim here with min_cycles? Why not just clamp new_rate > post-factum to 0.75% vicinity of base_rate, as this is done in the 2â?° > case? > Without min_cycles you will far more often hit the 2 â?° limit and when you are approaching the base_rate. This seriously disturbs the regulation. The goal was to get out to 0.75% as quick as possible while approaching the base rate cautiously (with a weak regulator when latency is far off). Also without min_cycles you see the rates hopping up and down (due to the 2â?° limitation), you do not see a (more or less) continuous rate function.
