Yo Hal!
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 15:38:58 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> g...@rellim.com said:
> >> New samples arrive every second.
> > No. Twice a second. But now you are confusing the PPS with the
> > PLL.
>
> PPS is pulse per second. There is only 1 pulse each second. Where
> is the other d
g...@rellim.com said:
>> New samples arrive every second.
> No. Twice a second. But now you are confusing the PPS with the PLL.
PPS is pulse per second. There is only 1 pulse each second. Where is the
other data coming from?
Are you thinking of the other edge? ntpd disables collecting da
Yo Hal!
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 12:21:54 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> gemiller:
> Being the whole point of ntpd, to
> manage the kernel PLL, this should be
> obvious.
>
> No. The purpose of ntp is to maintain the correct system time.
Sort of. First, ntpd manages system time by mangaing the ke
gemiller:
Being the whole point of ntpd, to
manage the kernel PLL, this should be
obvious.
No. The purpose of ntp is to maintain the correct system time.
ntpd itself is a PLL.
The purpose of the Kernel PLL is to do the same things with
PPS pulses but do it better. It may have been import
Yo Hal!
On Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:14:49 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> gemiller
> I have a hard time believing a PLL
> running at user timer interrupt time
> can be anywhere as good as a kerenl
> PLL running at TICK intervals.
>
> There are two parts to this discussion. There is the PPS time s
gemiller
I have a hard time believing a PLL
running at user timer interrupt time
can be anywhere as good as a kerenl
PLL running at TICK intervals.
There are two parts to this discussion. There is the PPS time stamp and the
PLL.
The PPS time stamp gives you the data to work with. The w
