On Tue, Feb 09, 2016 at 12:34:05PM +0530, Rayagond Kokatanur wrote:
> I also verified that there is no difference between
> MASTER PHC and MASTER system time,.
There should be a difference. Your master's system time is in the UTC
timescale, but your master's PHC time is in the TAI timescale.
On Thu, Jan 28, 2016 at 04:10:44PM +0800, Pengfei zhao wrote:
> We see, in ptpStack code, there is one definition of MAX_PORTS as
> 8. It is basing on performance consideration? If we want to increase
> it, for example 24, what is the potential impact?
The value was only meant as a reasonable
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 03:51:57PM +0530, aniket wrote:
> In my first experiment, master and slave are 2 Km away from each other.
> In this case I got offset at slave PHY clock around 50 nano second.
>
> In second experiment I relocate my slave around 20 Km from master where
> I got offset of
On Sat, Dec 12, 2015 at 03:58:31PM -0500, Brian Walsh wrote:
> I was not sure if having it reset during ifup makes more sense. Does the
> clock go away when the interface is down? I can't test that right now.
> It is my primary interface so it is always up on my device.
The /dev/ptpX persists
On Thu, Dec 10, 2015 at 12:06:19PM -0500, Brian Walsh wrote:
> It is an Intel 82574L. 8086:10d3
Ok, I have that card. The driver is the e1000e (and not the e1000).
Can you send me your iptables script so that I can try and reproduce
the problem?
> Looking again it appears it may be the opposite
On Tue, Dec 08, 2015 at 11:27:29AM -0500, Brian Walsh wrote:
> Sorry if this has been asked before. The archives are unreachable on
> sourceforge. I keep getting an "Error 403 Read access required" when trying
> to view the list archives.
Yes, SF does have issues, and I want to move away from
On Fri, Dec 04, 2015 at 08:27:11PM +0800, Pengfei zhao wrote:
> Hi,
> As the title. if current release of linuxptp stack support alternate BMC
> specified in telecom profile?
No, it doesn't support the telecom profle. We do not have unicast
implemented.
Sorry,
Richard
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 09:46:10AM +0100, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Is the driver really buggy or is it something else in my setup ?
If the message comes only once, or only rarely, then the driver is
probably okay. On your platform, you can increase tx_timestamp_timeout
to 10 or so, without any
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 03:15:57PM +0100, frank wrote:
> 10ms does not work either..
I have a BBB somewhere. I'll dig it out and try it with NFS myself.
Thanks,
Richard
--
On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 01:26:45PM +0100, frank wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have a question wrt. to configuring linuxptp, what are "good values"
> for tx_timestamp_timeout?
The smaller, the better.
> It seems that linuxptp fails to work if the rootfs is mounted with nfs.
> I debugged this a bit and it
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 05:35:18PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> For master, you need to use phc2sys to sync the kernel time to the PHC
> on the NIC doing the timestamping, on the slave you do the reverse,
> which is what the "-r -r" option is for.
The double -r is for the master.
Actually, if
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 12:38:38PM +, Gil Graiber wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I run:
> ptp4l -i eth0 -m
> The prints looks OK (even after hours).
> Once I run
> phc2sys -r -a
> Or
> phc2sys -s eth0 -c CLOCK_REALTIME -w
Are you perhaps running phc2sys like that on the master?
Please show us the
On Wed, Nov 11, 2015 at 02:44:22PM +, Gil Graiber wrote:
> I run phc2sys like this on the master and the slave.
It is not best practice to use the system for a PTP master. However,
you *can* do this if you really, truly want to. On the master, you
need to repeat the '-r' phc2sys option in
On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 08:29:06AM +0100, frank wrote:
> Do I need to change more configuration settings? Or is this the wrong
> way to do things?
The choices are:
1. HW time stamping with PHC
2. SW time stamping with the system clock (CLOCK_REALTIME)
You cannot mix the two. So, for SW time
On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 09:20:02AM +0100, Michael Kasprowicz wrote:
> Good morning everyone,
>
> I have trouble getting ptp4l to work on Freescale i.mx6 with 'fec'
> supported MAC as a slave.
I have never tested the imx6 myself, and I have my doubts about the
driver...
> In one failed case my
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 04:42:31PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> Thanks richard. I don't see the v1.6 tag..
Oops. Sorry. It should be there now.
Thanks,
Richard
--
___
ttl option.
util: add function for simple rate limiting.
print: add rate limited versions of pr_* macros.
port: print bogus delay request message as rate limited info.
Richard Cochran (96):
clock: support management SET of the priority attributes.
pmc: support setting th
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 01:58:09PM -0500, Scott Silverman wrote:
> My slaves *are* running ptp4l (and phc2sys). The only devices not using
> ptp4l are the Cisco boundary clocks.
All the nodes report the same grandmasterIdentity. I guess that one
of your BCs is introducing the
On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 01:34:53PM -0400, Dale Smith wrote:
> I could be wrong, but isn't the step_threshold in seconds? And -106627 is
> about 106 microseconds. So won't it take quite a while yet before the
> threshold is reached?
Yes, you are right. The value is in seconds. However, I
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 04:32:09PM +, Harold Lapprich wrote:
> How does one get a system to recover quickly from this type of issue
> (i.e., 20 - 30 minutes is unreasonable and powering the unit ON/OFF
> isn't an option)?
Use the step_threshold configuration option. From the man page:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 07:40:41PM +, Harold Lapprich wrote:
> Thanks for the quick response. Did a search on the web for 'ptp4l
> man'
Why search around when you could just go to the source instead?
http://sourceforge.net/projects/linuxptp
Click on the big green button to download the
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:30:19PM +0530, Harini Katakam wrote:
> We are running linuxptp on both master and slave. The master and slave are
> either PCs with Ubuntu OS or a Xilinx embedded system with linux. The transit
> time is getting added in the TC i.e. it updates the 8 byte correction
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 02:30:19PM +0530, Harini Katakam wrote:
> We are running linuxptp on both master and slave. The master and slave are
> either PCs with Ubuntu OS or a Xilinx embedded system with linux. The transit
> time is getting added in the TC i.e. it updates the 8 byte correction
Dear linuxptp users and developers,
Soon it will be time, once again, for a release. We have two shiny
new features, the tsproc and the hybrid mode.
The tsproc code has been in git for a while, but I only just pushed
out the hybrid mode today. I would like to release version 1.6 in
about two
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 01:42:01PM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> The ESMC message defined
> here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_Ethernet#Messaging_channel
Oh, that.
Yes, I did implement that in 400 LOC for a customer project. It is a
very simple protocol.
What we really need is an
On Fri, Sep 04, 2015 at 12:35:59PM +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Generally speaking, do you know which support is needed in the host CPU (or
> SoC) for SyncE ? From what I gather whith PHYCR2:13 you have syntonized the
> ethernet endpoints, but you still don't send the heartbeat and everything do
On Tue, Sep 01, 2015 at 09:34:32PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
> By die gracefully here, I mean not segfault, but just instantly quit.
Right, and Miroslav's recent patches do catch a malloc failure and
call exit() in that case.
Thanks,
Richard
On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 10:28:15PM +0100, Guo Hao wrote:
> Hence the working principle would be as:
> 1. The Endace card might get the ToD second (from NTP or PTP) before the
> accurate 1-PPS or after the 1-PPS
> 2. If the ToD second comes first then 1-PPS comes later, Endace card would
> record
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 08:35:56PM +0100, Guo Hao wrote:
But what if there is certain time offset between GPS clock's ToD and host
PC's ToD, say 3 us when the capture card gets its initial ToD from the PC.
Then even the capture has 1-PPS from the GPS clock, the timestamp
difference would be in
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 10:59:37PM +0100, Guo Hao wrote:
hao@Hao-Ubuntu:~$ uname -a
Linux Hao-Ubuntu 3.16.0-30-generic #40~14.04.1-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jan 15
17:43:14 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
Ok, so your kernel is new enough, and I guess that the ubuntu kernel
does include PTP
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 12:19:25PM +0100, Guo Hao wrote:
Hi Richard,
i have 2 Intel 82547 NICs and they should support hardware timestamping.
^
82574 ?
Please see below the output of ethtool -T ethx:
Ok, then:
- Download and untar the linuxptp sources.
- Change into
On Sat, Aug 29, 2015 at 06:09:56PM +0100, Guo Hao wrote:
ptp4l[7726.711]: master offset -8 s2 freq +3835 path delay
825
Does this mean the clock offset between the 82574 NIC and the Master Clock
is in the range less than 100 ns?
Yes.
Does that mean the system time is
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 08:23:51PM +0100, Guo Hao wrote:
So could you please tell me how to move forward from the kernel part?
Thank you very much for your help.
You do not need to compile the kernel if it is new enough.
Tell us the output of this command:
uname -a
Thanks,
Richard
On Tue, Aug 18, 2015 at 11:14:29PM +, Harold Lapprich wrote:
9. A background application written by me CheckMasterStatus is
started on each of the system nodes at boot monitoring PTP
status using PMC.
Yes, that is whole point of why the pmc program exists.
Automatic
On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 11:09:08PM +, Chandra Mallela wrote:
However, you mention that 'max' for the offset is simply the maximum
offset observed in the sample. In that case, do frequency correction
and offset correction values differ in their definitions (with 7ns
in the offset defining
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 12:22:01PM +, Chandra Mallela wrote:
Offset correction: the 'rms' (root mean squre - 2 ns in the above
case) is the mean offset (calculated as squareroot of the mean of
the offset squares) of all the offsets in the sample observed in the
interval and 'max' (7ns) is
On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 02:55:35PM +0800, Caleb Yu wrote:
To whom it may interest,
I am new to linuxptp. I have not able to check on Linux-users archive yet
since I just recently added due to read access required error.
Archives on Gmane:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.linux.ptp.devel
On Fri, Jun 12, 2015 at 05:18:57PM -0500, Robb wrote:
I have two freshly installed machines that I am trying to sync the
CLOCK_REALTIME between the two. Do I need to have them get close in
time using ntp before I can use PTP?
No.
How far apart can the clocks be and still have PTP work?
You
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 04:20:05PM +0200, IOhannes m zmölnig wrote:
attached are two git patches that fix these problems.
Can you please resend with each patch in its own plain text email?
PS: i hope it is ok to use this list for these kind of messages; but
there is no bug tracker on the sf
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 03:23:50PM -0700, Gary E. Miller wrote:
I have the same problem with hardware sync. There was a discussion on
linuxptp-devel on this last May, but since the email archives seem to be
down right now I can't point you at it.
The SF archives are unusable, IMHO, even
On Wed, May 06, 2015 at 06:27:38PM +, Keller, Jacob E wrote:
You don't by chance still have that email? I am trying to find it in the
archive..
Here it is:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.linux.ptp.devel/2503
Cheers,
Richard
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 03:38:38PM +, Daniel Le wrote:
[DL] The FPGA has its own clock and a proprietary slewing mechanism to sync
to a time source. It does not use phc2sys
because my embedded system doesn't have 3.x Linux kernel.
[DL] In the case of PTP time source, the FPGA
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:11:57PM +, Chandra Mallela wrote:
My understanding is that logAnnounceInterval (default 1 in every two seconds)
is to be set up at the master and announceReceiptTimeout (default 3 messages
before the last message reception) to be at the slave. Am I right?
Yes
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 05:28:45PM +, Chandra Mallela wrote:
As for 'what is that supposed to achieve?', in ideal scenario, targeting
50pbb for CDMA is what I look at. I am further trying to analyze SyncE
requirements from 1588 perspective, which seems too tough at this moment due
to OS
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 04:04:45PM +, Chandra Mallela wrote:
* My understanding is that logAnnounceInterval (default 1 in every
two seconds) is to be set up at the master and announceReceiptTimeout
(default 3 messages before the last message reception) to be at the slave. Am
I
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 06:54:13AM +, Chandra Mallela wrote:
I need some important help from you. I am unable to get offset at higher
frequencies of sync packets (logSyncInterval -9 resulting in 512 packets per
second). Only rms value is reported. I rather want offset values for
On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 08:03:51PM +0100, Axel Holzinger wrote:
Well, it was a combination of all three tips. Finally I found out that
gPTP.cfg sets path_trace_enabled to 1 while switch B doesn't send a path
trace TLV. That was the reason for ptp4l to drop the announce message.
Switch B is
On Thu, Aug 07, 2014 at 09:41:14PM +0800, Ronex Dicapriyo wrote:
PTP master/slave is not working while I tried to run it over same host.
^^
What? That doesn't make any sense.
And Can you please suggest How I could run it on
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 02:43:54PM +0800, Ronex Dicapriyo wrote:
Hello,
I want to compile linuxptp for linux and ARM host,
But while compiling over linux it throws following errors:
grep: /usr/include/linux/net_tstamp.h: No such file or directory
gcc -Wall -DVER=1.4-00063-gbdb6a35 -c
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 09:31:19AM +0100, Mohamed Belaouad wrote:
The core registers of the IP are the same. To me, everything seems
fine with the registers addresses related to the
reception/transmit/timestamping.
Did you consider that the input clock to the time function within the
IP core
On Tue, Mar 04, 2014 at 03:48:57PM +, Pham, Calvin wrote:
Calvin output of strace
strace ./testptp -d /dev/ptp0 -g
...
clock_gettime(0xffe3 /* CLOCK_??? */, {1393947888, 731912808}) = 0
The kernel returns zero.
Calvin Here is output of ltrace
[root@V4-CALVIN ptptest]# ltrace
On Fri, Feb 21, 2014 at 08:50:43AM +, Ledda William EXT wrote:
Which is the kernel version that include CLOCK_TAI?
v3.10
HTH,
Richard
--
Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications
Take advantage of what
On Wed, Feb 19, 2014 at 02:08:14PM +, Koehrer Mathias (ETAS/ESW5) wrote:
With my kernel 3.2 there is no config option CONFIG_NO_HZ_IDLE.
I have only CONFIG_NO_HZ. Is this also harmful?
Yes, that is the old name. Use nohz=off as the others have suggested.
Thanks,
Richard
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 03:55:21PM +, Koehrer Mathias (ETAS/ESW5) wrote:
Starting this application on the slaves is only allowed if the
time-synchronization is stable (=the clock offset is below a certain limit
and the drift is low).
With ptpd2 there is a status file
It has been six months since the last release, and activity has been
quiet for a while, so I plan to release v1.4 in about one week. If you
want to do any last minute testing (or you want to report a bug), now
is the time to do it.
After that, we can start on adding new requested features. Here
601 - 655 of 655 matches
Mail list logo
