"David J Taylor" <[email protected]> writes:
>Unruh wrote: >> "David J Taylor" >[] >>> In view of the popularity of the GPS18-LVC it's a pity that the >>> driver support for the leap second isn't better, but I appreciate >>> that being able to test once every few years doesn't make things any >>> easier! >> >> As far as I can see, the GPS18-LVC unit does NOT warn of leapseconds. >> There is absolutely nothing the driver can do if the information is >> not supplied by >> the GPS unit. >Yes, that was poorly worded - I meant "shouldn't NTP note the leap-second >flags from the other Internet upstream servers, and base its whole second >values on those sources during a leap-second update, using just the PPS >part of the GPS signal?" The would appear to apply to any GPS source >which is PPS + NMEA.... That is what it appears to do. I have three sources, a GPS PPS source (via the shm driver which has no leapsecond warning), and two outside sources, one a level 1 and the other a level 2 source (which is a pretty flakey source, and is never the preferred source) The other level 1 source, although separated from me by 45ms round trip has an offset at the .1ms level (as compared with the PPS) And my system is showing the leap second warning. ntpq> rv assID=0 status=4964 leap_add_sec, sync_telephone, 6 events, event_peer/strat_chg, version="ntpd [email protected] Fri Mar 14 06:59:25 UTC 2008 (1)", processor="i686", system="Linux/2.6.24.7-desktop-2mnb", leap=01, stratum=1, precision=-20, rootdelay=0.000, rootdispersion=0.433, peer=48639, refid=PPS, reftime=ccf27d17.96467b01 Tue, Dec 16 2008 11:16:39.587, poll=4, clock=ccf27d25.491436a5 Tue, Dec 16 2008 11:16:53.285, state=4, offset=0.009, frequency=212.452, jitter=0.001, noise=0.001, stability=0.000, tai=0 >David _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
