"David L. Mills" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Gene,
>I've seen and reviewed the paper; however, reviews are private to the Their paper is public. It is posted on the web. >authors. Someone else should take a close look at what they are actually >measuring and assess the dynmaics of the discipline loop. Did you do so? If so, your analysis would be of interest. And I cannot see why the analysis of a public paper should be kept private. >Dave >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Developers at the University of Melbourne have produced a time-sync >> client called "TSCclock" which exchanges standard NTP packets with a >> NTP server. They assert that TSCclock, which runs on FreeBSD and at >> least two flavors of Linux (Ubuntu and Fedora), provides substantially >> better synchronization than ntpd both on a LAN and over the Internet. >> >> The following info is some of what is available: >> >> 1. The TSCclock page at the University of Melbourne: >> http://www.cubinlab.ee.unimelb.edu.au/tscclock/ >> >> 2. A paper titled "Ten Microseconds Over LAN, for Free", originally >> presented at the 2007 International IEEE Symposium on Precision Clock >> Synchronization for Measurement, Control and Communication. This is >> available at >> http://www.cubinlab.ee.unimelb.edu.au/~darryl/Publications/ISPCS07_camera.pdf >> It includes a general description of their approach and results for >> both ntpd and TSCclock obtained in their testbed. >> >> 3. A one-hour Google Tech Talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3nXgeh7v_U >> >> All of the info on TSCclock that I have run across has originated with >> the group at the University of Melbourne. Does anyone know of an >> independent comparison between ntpd and TSCclock? >> >> Thanks, >> Gene _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
