Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 17/03/14 09:48, Martin Burnicki wrote:
You'd need hardware (FPGA?) which can be clocked at 1 GHz, and even in
the hardware signal processing you'd need to account for a number of
signal propagation delays which you can eventually ignore at lower clock
rates.
So of
Paul wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Joe Gwinn joegw...@comcast.net wrote:
Yes. My question is basically a query about the current state of the
art.
Some NTP offsets (output may look funny if formatted) clock1 looking at
clock2 and clock3 (a Raspberry Pi). This suggests it can be
Paul wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Joe Gwinn joegw...@comcast.net wrote:
People are also lusting after sub-microsecond sync.
Sure but not optimally in comp.protocols.ntp/questions@lists.ntp.org.
With some help NTP can be quite good but the intent really isn't nanosecond
accuracy.
On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 5:14 AM, Martin Burnicki
martin.burni...@meinberg.de wrote:
But without additional measurements you still don't know for sure if this
is the true time offset, or if there is an additional systematic time
offset (e.g. to an asymmetric network connection) which can't be
On 2014-03-18, Martin Burnicki martin.burni...@meinberg.de wrote:
Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 17/03/14 09:48, Martin Burnicki wrote:
You'd need hardware (FPGA?) which can be clocked at 1 GHz, and even in
the hardware signal processing you'd need to account for a number of
signal propagation
On 2014-03-18 02:59, Martin Burnicki wrote:
All depends on how accurate and precise you can get your timestamps, and this
is probably easier with network packet timestampers at both sides of a cable
than with a wireless time transfer method like GPS which usually suffers from
delays which can't
On 18/03/14 01:36, Joe Gwinn wrote:
In article 5327757e.5040...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson
mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote:
Joe,
On 16/03/14 23:16, Joe Gwinn wrote:
I recall seeing something from Dr. Mills saying that a formal proof had
been found showing that no packet-exchange
On 18/03/14 01:24, Joe Gwinn wrote:
In article 532778bf.50...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson
mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote:
On 17/03/14 13:50, Joe Gwinn wrote:
In article lg61s4$ong$3...@dont-email.me, William Unruh
un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2014-03-16, Joe Gwinn
On 18/03/14 02:45, Paul wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Joseph Gwinn joegw...@comcast.net wrote:
Will it do 100 meters or more, in bad neighborhoods?
I'm not the right person to ask but since it is expected to maintain
between 2.5 and 100 nanosecond sync with CPE nodes (cable
On 18/03/14 09:59, Martin Burnicki wrote:
Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 17/03/14 09:48, Martin Burnicki wrote:
You'd need hardware (FPGA?) which can be clocked at 1 GHz, and even in
the hardware signal processing you'd need to account for a number of
signal propagation delays which you can
On 18/03/14 10:17, Martin Burnicki wrote:
Paul wrote:
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Joe Gwinn joegw...@comcast.net wrote:
People are also lusting after sub-microsecond sync.
Sure but not optimally in comp.protocols.ntp/questions@lists.ntp.org.
With some help NTP can be quite good but
Magnus Danielson wrote: Martin Burnicki wrote:
We have mades some tests and found that NTP can yield the
same accuracy as NTP if also hardware timestamping of NTP
packets is supported on all nodes, similar as for PTP.
In fact this isn't surprising, is it?
No, it's not. NTP is being
12 matches
Mail list logo
