On Feb 9, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> Perhaps you mean 8 nanosecond resolution?
> Is documentation available for this claim?
To clarify; we haven't proven this either mathematically not in a laboratory
(looking at actual data transmissions). Also, it's the jitter accuracy we're
conce
On Feb 9, 2011, at 9:56 AM, Joe Perches wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 09:24 +0100, Anders Berggren wrote:
>> Our hardware ping, using Intel 82580 NICs,
>> have an accuracy of 8 nanoseconds.
>
> Perhaps you mean 8 nanosecond resolution?
> Is documentation available for this claim?
Well, both. 8
On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 09:24 +0100, Anders Berggren wrote:
> Our hardware ping, using Intel 82580 NICs,
> have an accuracy of 8 nanoseconds.
Perhaps you mean 8 nanosecond resolution?
Is documentation available for this claim?
--
On Feb 8, 2011, at 5:27 PM, Ronciak, John wrote:
> The question of IPv6 support for TX timestamping is still under discussion.
> We are trying to understand the use case for it as well as how it would be
> used. We have had no customers asking for this type of support (at least not
> yet). I
> -Original Message-
> From: Anders Berggren [mailto:and...@halon.se]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 08, 2011 7:25 AM
> To: Kirsher, Jeffrey T
> Cc: Ronciak, John; e1000-devel@lists.sourceforge.net;
> net...@vger.kernel.org
> Subject: Re: [E1000-devel] [PATCH] fixing h
On Feb 4, 2011, at 12:23 AM, Jeff Kirsher wrote:
> Thanks Anders, I will add this patch to my queue of igb patches.
Another question which I asked John Ronciak earlier; is there any work on TX
timestamping for IPv6? In 2.6.37 sock_tx_timestamp() is only called in IPv4 UDP
(net/ipv4/udp.c) and r
Hardware timestamping for Intel 82580 didn't work in either 2.6.36 or 2.6.37.
Comparing it to Intel's igb-2.4.12 I found that the timecounter_init
clock/counter initialization was done too early.
Anders Berggren
Halon Security
lab-slang-1:~# diff -u linux-2.6.37/drivers/net/igb/igb_main.c
lin
