At the moment, I would unfortunately have to say no. The vendor has committed 
to fixing the issue, but it’s been outstanding for 7-8 months now.

I can certainly recommend the LeoNTP units. They are incredibly stable: my 
dedicated monitoring system (i210) is current tracking the Leo units at an 
average standard deviation of ~33ns for locally attached (100Mb), and ~36ns for 
across a switch (1Gb). Even my server (i211) holds ~42ns across the switch. 
Good gear.

Denny



> On Jun 13, 2017, at 06:01, Miroslav Lichvar <mlich...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 07:31:24AM -0700, Denny Page wrote:
>> A great deal depends upon the server side ntp implementation which is why I 
>> asked which device he was using. I have several ntp devices under test, 
>> including one that also supports ptp. While quite accurate in the service of 
>> ptp, it's service of ntp has errors of up to 3ms. I have been working with 
>> the vendor on the issue. 
> 
> Beside the LeoNTP unit, are there any NTP devices using their current
> firmware versions that you would recommend?


--
To unsubscribe email chrony-users-requ...@chrony.tuxfamily.org
with "unsubscribe" in the subject.
For help email chrony-users-requ...@chrony.tuxfamily.org
with "help" in the subject.
Trouble?  Email listmas...@chrony.tuxfamily.org.

Reply via email to