On Sep 11, 3:06 pm, David Woolley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Woolley wrote: > > Depends on interrupt latency, network loading, the total lack of any > > Windows machines in the time synchronisation chain, etc. 100ns should > > be possible for lightly loaded machines on a lightly loaded network, at > > least 90% of the time. > > Sorry. I got 100 microseconds and 100 ns mixed up. However, whilst 100 > microseconds is rather easier to achieve, if you want 100% reliability, > I still think the common PPS line would be advisable. Caveats about > Windows still apply.
We don't have any Windows boxes on the experimental network. Can you please recommend a cheap PPS line? _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
