David J Taylor <david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > "Miroslav Lichvar" <mlich...@redhat.com> wrote in message > news:hu5osh$kc...@speranza.aioe.org... > [] >> I couldn't find a description either, but it seems to work as expected. >> PPS is turned off when the sync is lost and turned on when a fix is >> back. It works only when the fix status is changed, i.e. the command >> itself doesn't change the PPS status. >> >> -- >> Miroslav Lichvar > > That's good news, Miroslav, thanks for the update. I'm not sure how best > to use that. If lock is lost for a long period then using an alternative > source would be better, even if that means only getting (for example) > millisecond accuracy. But if the outage is just a few minutes, I wonder > whether the free-running PPS output might not be better than sync over the > Internet? There may sense in leaving the PPS output running for a few > minutes if lock is lost and the PPS is the only precision source - what do > you think?
At that level you should leave the thinking to NTPD. It has the logic to select the best source and to free-run if appropriate. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
