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? Kurt _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@ntpsec.org http://lists.ntpsec.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
