Unruh wrote:
I do not understand this. You seem to be measuring the offsets, not the
frequencies. The offset is irrelevant. What you want to do is to measure
Measuring phase error to control frequency is pretty much THE standard
way of doing it in modern electronics. It's called a phase
Uwe Klein wrote:
Martin Burnicki wrote:
Agreed. However, you can at least configure the dynamic interface scan
interval using the -U parameter, so you can decide if you prefer short
response times or a longer response time with maybe decreased power
requirements.
push a trigger for this into
David Woolley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Unruh wrote:
I do not understand this. You seem to be measuring the offsets, not the
frequencies. The offset is irrelevant. What you want to do is to measure
Measuring phase error to control frequency is pretty much THE standard
way of doing it in
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED],
Martin Burnicki [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
AFAIK ntpd has to manage the binding to interfaces at least if autokey is
enabled since the signature hash also includes the IP address of the
interface via which a packet is sent.
At least some operating systems (don't know
Bill,
If you need only the frequency, least-squares doesn't help a lot; all
you need are the first and last points during the measurement interval.
The NIST LOCKCLOCK and nptd FLL disciplines compute the frequency
directly and exponentially average successive intervals. The NTP
discipline is
Uwe Klein wrote:
David Woolley wrote:
Evandro Menezes wrote:
HLT instructions are a complete red herring here. They've been available
Modern CPUs, chipsets and OSes have a wide range of features to manage
I'm aware of that.
power _and_ these are heavily used on any platform, be it PDA,
