On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 08:08:12AM +0200, Luigi Mantellini wrote: > The actual ptp4l implementation rearms timers after the expiration. This > approach doesn't permit to have a precise TX SYNC message scheduling. > During my test the TX SYNC frequency is slightly lower the expectation (eg > 15.99Hz vs 16Hz).
Can you please explain advantages of using a constant interval? Generally, sending timing sensitive messages over network in a constant interval sounds like a bad idea to me. If there are multiple hosts doing that (e.g. PTP servers in different domains) and they happen to collide in their transmissions times (which requires queueing and potentially impacts timestamp accuracy), this is more likely to repeat frequently. If anything, I'd expect more randomness to be added to the interval. -- Miroslav Lichvar _______________________________________________ Linuxptp-devel mailing list Linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linuxptp-devel
