Re: [asterisk-users] Zaptel timing on TE405P

2008-01-18 Thread Tzafrir Cohen
On Fri, Jan 18, 2008 at 05:44:12PM +0200, Atis Lezdins wrote: > On 1/17/08, Atis Lezdins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 1/17/08, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:09:59PM +0200, Atis Lezdins wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > I'm wondering why zttest shows

Re: [asterisk-users] Zaptel timing on TE405P

2008-01-18 Thread Atis Lezdins
On 1/17/08, Atis Lezdins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 1/17/08, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:09:59PM +0200, Atis Lezdins wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I'm wondering why zttest shows > > > Best: 99.976 -- Worst: 99.967 -- Average: 99.971469, Difference: 99

Re: [asterisk-users] Zaptel timing on TE405P

2008-01-17 Thread Atis Lezdins
On 1/17/08, Tzafrir Cohen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:09:59PM +0200, Atis Lezdins wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I'm wondering why zttest shows > > Best: 99.976 -- Worst: 99.967 -- Average: 99.971469, Difference: 99.971469 > > > > Shouldn't it be 100% as timing is hardware and c

Re: [asterisk-users] Zaptel timing on TE405P

2008-01-17 Thread Tzafrir Cohen
On Thu, Jan 17, 2008 at 03:09:59PM +0200, Atis Lezdins wrote: > Hi, > > I'm wondering why zttest shows > Best: 99.976 -- Worst: 99.967 -- Average: 99.971469, Difference: 99.971469 > > Shouldn't it be 100% as timing is hardware and comes from PRI? Am I > missing some kernel config? It may be slig

[asterisk-users] Zaptel timing on TE405P

2008-01-17 Thread Atis Lezdins
Hi, I'm wondering why zttest shows Best: 99.976 -- Worst: 99.967 -- Average: 99.971469, Difference: 99.971469 Shouldn't it be 100% as timing is hardware and comes from PRI? Am I missing some kernel config? Regards, Atis My /etc/zaptel.conf is span=1,4,0,esf,b8zs span=2,3,0,esf,b8zs span=3,2,0,e