On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 06:00:45PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Dan Drown <dan-...@drown.org>:
> > Quoting "Eric S. Raymond" <e...@thyrsus.com>:
> > >Achim Gratz <strom...@nexgo.de>:
> > >>…or move the refclocks out of ntpd altogether and use some shared memory
> > >>or mailbox system to have ntpd have a look at the timestamp stream from
> > >>each refclock.
> > >
> > >Yeah, this is one of my longer-term plans.  It was in the original 
> > >technical
> > >proposal I wrote 18 months ago, labeled REFCLOCKD.
> > 
> > I'll add my +1 to this, setting the local time is a logical process split
> > from serving time to clients.
> One good reason to do this that I've just realized recently is that if
> we moved PPS handling to a refclockd we could take the timer tick out
> of ntpd.  This would lower power consumption in the pure-client case,
> which I think is significant (consider embedded and mobile
> deployments).

Isn't the timer also used for the PI loop?  Or has much of that
design been changed?


devel mailing list

Reply via email to