In message: <c636b079.7d49%[email protected]> "Lux, James P" <[email protected]> writes: : I also wouldn't have the low order counter count nanoseconds, or even set it : up as seconds/subseconds.
I'd echo this, since you are artificially limiting the clocks that are input to having a period of an exact number of nanoseconds. This rounding could lead to systematic errors that would lead to a higher noise in the measurements. A simple counter is more flexible. It allows for a number of additional algorithms to be applied to the raw time measurements to account for drift in the underlying oscillator. Phk's timecounters allow for this. They assume a time source that is free-running. It can be measured against a known better source to improve its accuracy (which is what ntpd does). This allows one to correct over time for, say, the relatively crappy internal oscillator found in most PCs. The nice thing about timecounters is they allow hardware as described in this thread to replace the underlying system hardware. Warner _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
