I tested some other BIOS settings and found out that the disabling APIC
support improve a lot chrony perfomances : PPS is good and i get much
better performance with my ntp sources : better std dev and test C is not
failing anymore ( like it did 90% of the time on some sources before with
chrony 3
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Thibaut BEYLER wrote:
> So i guess this is realted to some kind of cpu scheduling. However i
And, just to help rule out actual scheduler latency, you could run
chronyd with realtime priority (SCHED_FIFO or SCHED_RR) to make sure
it always has an absolute scheduling
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 5:09 AM, Thibaut BEYLER wrote:
> Well, I found out that if i run a cpu stress test (i am using mprime
> 'torture test') while running chrony, suddenly my PPS source std dev goes
> stable below 300ns.
>
> So i guess this is realted to some kind of cpu scheduling. However i
>
Well, I found out that if i run a cpu stress test (i am using mprime
'torture test') while running chrony, suddenly my PPS source std dev goes
stable below 300ns.
So i guess this is realted to some kind of cpu scheduling. However i
disabled the c-state options in the bios, my CPU frequency is not
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 05:25:09PM +0200, Thibaut BEYLER wrote:
> No I tested it on ordinary x64 kernel (4.9 , 3.16 etc..) coming from debian
> & fc repos with no custom options.
>
> I just installed pps-linux and invoked 'ldattach 18 /dev/ttyS0' (which also
> loads pps_ldisc module) , maybe i'm m
No I tested it on ordinary x64 kernel (4.9 , 3.16 etc..) coming from debian
& fc repos with no custom options.
I just installed pps-linux and invoked 'ldattach 18 /dev/ttyS0' (which also
loads pps_ldisc module) , maybe i'm missing something ?
2017-08-30 18:51 GMT+02:00 Miroslav Lichvar :
> On Tu
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 04:58:14PM +0200, Thibaut BEYLER wrote:
> > #* PPS0 0 4 37711 +4829ns[+6161ns]
> >> +/- 3021ns
> > PPS0 23 17 383 +0.0010.052
> >> +5ns5548ns
> I am using pps_ldisc, i tried pps
And how do you know it is worse. The best way would be for you to have an even
better clock source to compare it to.
Do you have that?
William G. Unruh __| Canadian Institute for| Tel: +1(604)822-3273
Physics&Astronomy _|___ Advanced Research _| Fax: +1(604)822-5324
UBC, Vancouver,BC _
> 210 Number of sources = 2
>
> MS Name/IP address Stratum Poll Reach LastRx Last sample
>
>
>> ===
>
> #* PPS0 0 4 37711 +4829ns[+6161ns]
>> +/- 3021ns
>
> ^- 10.30.121.241
On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 02:58:20PM +0200, Thibaut BEYLER wrote:
> Thanks, this is working indeed, but should i get good results (like, not
> more than a few of micros from my gps time) with these settings ?
You should get the same results as if the PPS refclock was locked to a
NMEA source for inst
Thanks, this is working indeed, but should i get good results (like, not
more than a few of micros from my gps time) with these settings ?
Right now it is locking on PPS (*) but my clock seem worse (offset to utc)
than when using only the ntp server as source.
2017-08-24 17:38 GMT+02:00 Miroslav
On Thu, Aug 24, 2017 at 05:18:08PM +0200, Thibaut BEYLER wrote:
> I'm trying to synchronise chrony with a pps signal coming from a bnc output
> on a gps timeserver.
>
> The pulses seems to arrive properly according to ppstest, but i don't
> figure out how to combine this pulse with a ntp time sour
12 matches
Mail list logo
