On Mar 25, 9:19 pm, Unruh <unruh-s...@physics.ubc.ca> wrote: > > I have no idea why and whether kernel PPS code is any better ( or worse) > than say PPS discipline using the shm PPS refclock using parallel port > interrupt. Ie, both can discipline > to about 1-2usec level.
Re-read the thread, then. A kernel clock disciplined by PPS allows PPS to continue to discipline the clock when ntpd's PPS implementation stops doing so because of a prefer peer problem. > The main problem is that the ntp model is too slow > reacting to temperature induced drifts. I'm sure that's your main problem re ntpd, but it's completely tangential to the thread. > >The complete system doesn't serve time to others. It's intention is > >monitoring. I'm building this as a diploma thesis for a > >telecommunication company. They have a large number of ntp servers > >with GPS receivers (called SSU) across the country. So my system only > >watches the offsets, that these SSUs have to assure that they are OK. > > They can monitor only to the msec (or 1/10 msec) level unless the other > systems are at the same place. I think he's monitoring the self-reported offsets between the NTP disciplined clock and the local GPS receiver. Network delay would not be a factor if so. Cheers, Dave Hart _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
