A C wrote:
On 3/31/2012 20:19, David Lord wrote:
A C wrote:
I'm not sure which value you are referring to. From the
"ntpq -p" billboard over a day, I see values of jitter
of the GPS as low as 0.002
Yes, it's that jitter however there's a minimum computed value below
which it never goes (varie
On 3/31/2012 20:19, David Lord wrote:
A C wrote:
I'm not sure which value you are referring to. From the
"ntpq -p" billboard over a day, I see values of jitter
of the GPS as low as 0.002
Yes, it's that jitter however there's a minimum computed value below
which it never goes (varies per system
David J Taylor wrote:
"David Lord" wrote in message
news:t1bk49-6hi@me6000g.home.lordynet.org...
[]
I'm not sure which value you are referring to. From the
"ntpq -p" billboard over a day, I see values of jitter
of the GPS as low as 0.002
jitter No of
0.002156
0.003
"David Lord" wrote in message
news:t1bk49-6hi@me6000g.home.lordynet.org...
[]
I'm not sure which value you are referring to. From the
"ntpq -p" billboard over a day, I see values of jitter
of the GPS as low as 0.002
jitter No of
0.002156
0.003 50
0.004
On 3/31/2012 20:19, David Lord wrote:
A C wrote:
I'm not sure which value you are referring to. From the
"ntpq -p" billboard over a day, I see values of jitter
of the GPS as low as 0.002
Yes, it's that jitter however there's a minimum computed value below
which it never goes (varies per system
A C wrote:
I'm not sure which value you are referring to. From the
"ntpq -p" billboard over a day, I see values of jitter
of the GPS as low as 0.002
Yes, it's that jitter however there's a minimum computed value below
which it never goes (varies per system). On my system it used to be
comput
I'm not sure which value you are referring to. From the
"ntpq -p" billboard over a day, I see values of jitter
of the GPS as low as 0.002
Yes, it's that jitter however there's a minimum computed value below
which it never goes (varies per system). On my system it used to be
computed at 0.061
A C wrote:
On 3/30/2012 03:30, David Lord wrote:
A C wrote:
On 3/29/2012 03:29, David Lord wrote:
Dave Hart wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:44, A C wrote:
Without flag3 it appears that ntpd does the heavy lifting but is
unable to
use the PPS unless a prefer peer is set. With flag3 enabled
On Sat, Mar 31, 2012 at 18:12, A C wrote:
> I understand that the jitter will change but I'm talking about the minimum
> possible jitter that ntpd can report for a given system. Using 4.2.6, the
> minimum possible jitter reported (such as what is shown in the ntpq
> billboard when ntpd first star
On 3/30/2012 03:30, David Lord wrote:
A C wrote:
On 3/29/2012 03:29, David Lord wrote:
Dave Hart wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:44, A C wrote:
Without flag3 it appears that ntpd does the heavy lifting but is
unable to
use the PPS unless a prefer peer is set. With flag3 enabled, PPS is
run
David Lord wrote:
A C wrote:
On 3/29/2012 03:29, David Lord wrote:
Dave Hart wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:44, A C wrote:
Without flag3 it appears that ntpd does the heavy lifting but is
unable to
use the PPS unless a prefer peer is set. With flag3 enabled, PPS is
running
without a prefe
A C wrote:
On 3/29/2012 03:29, David Lord wrote:
Dave Hart wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:44, A C wrote:
Without flag3 it appears that ntpd does the heavy lifting but is
unable to
use the PPS unless a prefer peer is set. With flag3 enabled, PPS is
running
without a prefer peer.
Being una
On 3/29/2012 03:29, David Lord wrote:
Dave Hart wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:44, A C wrote:
Without flag3 it appears that ntpd does the heavy lifting but is
unable to
use the PPS unless a prefer peer is set. With flag3 enabled, PPS is
running
without a prefer peer.
Being unable to use t
Dave Hart wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:44, A C wrote:
Without flag3 it appears that ntpd does the heavy lifting but is unable to
use the PPS unless a prefer peer is set. With flag3 enabled, PPS is running
without a prefer peer.
Being unable to use the PPS unless either a prefer peer is
On 3/28/2012 22:02, Dave Hart wrote:
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:44, A C wrote:
Without flag3 it appears that ntpd does the heavy lifting but is unable to
use the PPS unless a prefer peer is set. With flag3 enabled, PPS is running
without a prefer peer.
Being unable to use the PPS unless eith
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 02:44, A C wrote:
> Without flag3 it appears that ntpd does the heavy lifting but is unable to
> use the PPS unless a prefer peer is set. With flag3 enabled, PPS is running
> without a prefer peer.
Being unable to use the PPS unless either a prefer peer is set or
another
On 3/28/2012 19:44, A C wrote:
On 3/28/2012 19:32, Dave Hart wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 05:34, A C wrote:
On 3/27/2012 22:07, Dave Hart wrote:
I suspect you will see that when you've used flag3 1, ntpd has
reported time_pps_kcbind failing. I do see a potential bug in that
code, though. If
On 3/28/2012 19:32, Dave Hart wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 05:34, A C wrote:
On 3/27/2012 22:07, Dave Hart wrote:
I suspect you will see that when you've used flag3 1, ntpd has
reported time_pps_kcbind failing. I do see a potential bug in that
code, though. If you don't get any hits from
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 05:34, A C wrote:
> On 3/27/2012 22:07, Dave Hart wrote:
>
>> I suspect you will see that when you've used flag3 1, ntpd has
>> reported time_pps_kcbind failing. I do see a potential bug in that
>> code, though. If you don't get any hits from the fgrep, try removing
>> li
On 3/27/2012 22:07, Dave Hart wrote:
I suspect you will see that when you've used flag3 1, ntpd has
reported time_pps_kcbind failing. I do see a potential bug in that
code, though. If you don't get any hits from the fgrep, try removing
line 1259 from ntp_refclock.c:
if
On 3/27/2012 22:07, Dave Hart wrote:
}
Then recompile ntpd and see if it then reports time_pps_kcbind failure
with flag3 1.
I should point out that the system is obviously using the PPS signal for
discipline because the offset on the ATOM line in the billboard never
d
On 3/27/2012 22:07, Dave Hart wrote:
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 03:52, A C wrote:
I'm doing more configuration tests to test ATOM against other configuration
options and have turned on flag3 to enable use of the kernel for PPS.
Previously it was disabled and, without a preferred peer, ATOM was n
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 03:52, A C wrote:
> I'm doing more configuration tests to test ATOM against other configuration
> options and have turned on flag3 to enable use of the kernel for PPS.
> Previously it was disabled and, without a preferred peer, ATOM was never
> activated. With a preferred
I'm doing more configuration tests to test ATOM against other
configuration options and have turned on flag3 to enable use of the
kernel for PPS. Previously it was disabled and, without a preferred
peer, ATOM was never activated. With a preferred peer, it would be
activated but all clocks wer
24 matches
Mail list logo
