Hi,
Based on your comments, we are pulling back this change.
For the issues we saw with the clientOnly=1 and boundary_clock_jbod=1, we have
sent out a new patch fixing them alone.
Thank you for your feedback.
Thanks,
Amar B S
-Original Message-
From: Ramana Reddy
Sent: 28 April 2021
-Original Message-
From: Miroslav Lichvar [mailto:mlich...@redhat.com]
Sent: 27 April 2021 21:54
To: Ramana Reddy
Cc: linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Amar Subramanyam; Richard Cochran
(richardcoch...@gmail.com)
Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH] To support Ordinary
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 03:59:05PM +, Ramana Reddy wrote:
> As I said, running independent clients defeats the purpose of BMC
> algorithm and breaks the ITU-T G.8275.2
> Spec compliance. The BMC algorithm should be run locally on all ports of
> every ordinary and boundary clock in a domain.
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 03:59:05PM +, Ramana Reddy wrote:
> As I said, running independent clients defeats the purpose of BMC
> algorithm and breaks the ITU-T G.8275.2
> Spec compliance. The BMC algorithm should be run locally on all ports of
> every ordinary and boundary clock in a
See my response inline:
Thanks,
Ramana
-Original Message-
From: Miroslav Lichvar [mailto:mlich...@redhat.com]
Sent: 27 April 2021 20:59
To: Ramana Reddy
Cc: linuxptp-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Amar Subramanyam
Subject: Re: [Linuxptp-devel] [PATCH] To support Ordinary
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 05:28:46PM +0200, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> An advantage of having multiple independent clients is that you can
> better detect failures in synchronization and avoid corrupting the
> other clocks.
Right. You can query the ptp4l instances (for example via pmc) and
then
On Sat, Apr 24, 2021 at 06:01:46AM +, Ramana Reddy wrote:
> Thanks. What I think is running multiple ptp4l instances might
> defeat the purpose of using BMCA as the chosen ptp4l
> Instance might not be carrying the best clock compared to other ptp4l
> instances. Alternatively we might have
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 09:04:28AM +, Amar Subramanyam via Linuxptp-devel
wrote:
> >But you haven't even identified a problem. clientOnly and
> >boundary_clock_jbod work just fine together:
>
> 1. Using boundary_clock_jbod has few issues which weren’t mentioned
> earlier(see mail
>But you haven't even identified a problem. clientOnly and boundary_clock_jbod
>work just fine together:
1. Using boundary_clock_jbod has few issues which weren’t mentioned
earlier(see mail trail for the issues).
Also boundary_clock_jbod might not be right term to be used for Ordinary
On Thu, Apr 15, 2021 at 11:16:00AM +0300, Amar Subramanyam via Linuxptp-devel
wrote:
> This change brings slave clock jbod feature which allows ptp4l to work as a
> Ordinary Subordinate/Slave clock using "just a bunch of devices" that are not
> synchronized to each other but a collection of
This change brings slave clock jbod feature which allows ptp4l to work as a
Ordinary Subordinate/Slave clock using "just a bunch of devices" that are not
synchronized to each other but a collection of clocks synchronized by an
external
source.The best master will be decided by BMCA among the
11 matches
Mail list logo
