Hallo Miguel,
Yes -- if TRAIM is configured in a particular way, the PPS
pulse [is] active only when Time RAIM algorithm confirms
time solution error is within the user defined alarm limit.
Can you poll the current TRAIM setup and status
with an @@En command and post the output?
Paul
I installed NTP v4.2.7p244 on my Sun SPARC + Solaris 9 system a couple
of days ago,
and now I have a message in the NTP log file that I've never seen
before:
30 Dec 05:48:51 xntpd[23840]: ts_min 1325220531.588564214 ts_prev
1325220531.588563380 ts 1325220531.588711963
30 Dec 05:48:51
Paul wrote:
I installed NTP v4.2.7p244 on my Sun SPARC + Solaris 9 system a couple
of days ago,
and now I have a message in the NTP log file that I've never seen
before:
30 Dec 05:48:51 xntpd[23840]: ts_min 1325220531.588564214 ts_prev
1325220531.588563380 ts 1325220531.588711963
30 Dec
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 09:28, Harlan Stenn st...@ntp.org wrote:
Paul wrote:
I installed NTP v4.2.7p244 on my Sun SPARC + Solaris 9 system a couple
of days ago,
and now I have a message in the NTP log file that I've never seen
before:
30 Dec 05:48:51 xntpd[23840]: ts_min
%)
8 us: 75 samples (1.39 %) (99.42 %)
9 us: 12 samples (0.22 %) (99.64 %)
10 us: 15 samples (0.28 %) (99.92 %)
11 us:4 samples (0.07 %) (100.00 %)
5400 / 5400 samples evaluated
And for today (at least until 12:30Z):
# cat /var/log/ntp/loop.20111230 | /mnt/script.sh
NTP Loopfile Analysis
Harlan and Dave,
Many thanks for your explanations.
On the morning of last Monday, 2011-12-27,
I compiled and installed NTP on two Sun/Solaris systems
(each with its own GCC compiler: 3.4.6 and 3.4.2 respectively).
System 'B' logged the 'fuzz' message
at 2011-12-28 18:45:39A
and again at
In article jdirbv$20dh$1...@synge.maths.tcd.ie,
David Malone dwmal...@walton.maths.tcd.ie wrote:
r...@panix.com (Rod Dorman) writes:
Isn't 802.11 a physical layer specification? Why would it be defining
transport layer behaviour?
No - it's a MAC and PHY layer. It doesn't care about TCP or UDP,
Nickolay Orekhov nowh...@mail.ru wrote:
1. If you mark clocks as true you somehow fool yourself :-). Because now
if the clocks are real falsetickers you won't even know about it and your
system
will be out of sync and for ex. will show low offset from some falseticker
maybe.
Yes, reading
On 12/30/2011 4:02 PM, Tomi Lehto wrote:
Nickolay Orekhovnowh...@mail.ru wrote:
1. If you mark clocks as true you somehow fool yourself :-). Because now
if the clocks are real falsetickers you won't even know about it and your
system
will be out of sync and for ex. will show low offset from
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 20:01, Rod Dorman r...@panix.com wrote:
I dont see anything to support the claim that UDP is treated as
guaranteed by WiFi
It's treated the same as all unicast, as has been said repeatedly.
Which means it is ACKed at the MAC layer and if the ACK is missing,
the frame is
In article CAMbSiYBj7LTCceUvsqVGc9U9WthW5h5_j6=l4a4b6dcxk5s...@mail.gmail.com,
Dave Hart davehart_gmail_exchange_...@davehart.net wrote:
On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 20:01, Rod Dorman r...@panix.com wrote:
I dont see anything to support the claim that UDP is treated as
guaranteed by WiFi
It's
11 matches
Mail list logo
