Hi, Luigi: yes, you are right. A mean path delay ~ 9us is reasonable, it is typical Calnex behavior. I am using Calnex 100G.
Thanks Alex Luigi 'Comio' Mantellini <luigi.mantell...@gmail.com> 于2022年9月8日周四 21:42写道： > A delay ~9ms is typical Calnex X behavior. > > Il giorno gio 8 set 2022 alle ore 15:29 Miroslav Lichvar > <mlich...@redhat.com> ha scritto: > > > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2022 at 07:41:53PM +0800, Hamilton Alex wrote: > > > ptp4l[130171.662]: rms 1 max 2 freq -49 +/- 3 delay 9058 > +/- 0 > > > > > my board has 1PPS output, I connect it to the master and compared with > > > reference PPS. > > > however, the 1pps time error is around 40 NS, which means my board is > > > ahead of the reference for about 40NS, which doesn't match the result > > > dumped by ptp4l. > > > > ptp4l is just printing the measured offset. It doesn't know the actual > error. > > > > A measured delay of 9 microseconds is huge. That's few kilometers of > > cable. What hardware do you use? Does it have PHY or MAC timestamping, > > and are those errors compensated? > > > > -- > > Miroslav Lichvar > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Linuxptp-devel mailing list > > Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel > > > > -- > Luigi 'Comio' Mantellini > My Professional Profile > > "UNIX is very simple, it just needs a genius to understand its > simplicity." [cit.] >
_______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
