Foden, Geoff wrote:
> Hi there,
>
>
> I am not an NTP expert at all, just investigating a test scenario that
> has popped up.
>
>
> We have a requirement stating that ...Each NTP client within [System
> under Test] shall be capable of accessing at least six NTP sources.
>
> As we simply wil
Todd Glassey CISM CIFI wrote:
> Danny Mayer wrote:
>> I have not documented any of your claims. Those are merely assertions on
>> your part.
>
> No Danny they are NOT - what they are is clear documentation of the
> gross failings of this group to meet Industry needs for the code.;
> That's the r
Correct me if I an wrong, but it seems like Todd has a problem with GPS and
NTP and that is why his company exists.
*GPS* - it can be spoofed, therefore it can NOT be trusted as a time source
*NTP* - there is lack of security controls around it. In addition, it can
be admitted as evidence in co
John Ackermann N8UR said the following on 05/03/2009 07:44 AM:
> that can keep time to fractions of a microsecond. I have details of
> that at http://www.febo.com/pages/soekris.*
My clever use of a footnote probably hosed that link if you try clicking
on it. Try: http://www.febo.com/pages/so
Kat said the following on 05/03/2009 12:05 AM:
> Nero Imhard wrote:
>> A much more reasonable approach would be to hook up the OCXO to
> your
>> computer's hardware clock for better stability.
> Unfortunately not as easy as it seems high frequency clocks are
> notoriously difficult to cons
In article ,
Kat writes:
>To try and maintain better accuracy on the ntp server that feeds my
>small network and increase the maxtime for server polling, I thought
>that I would dig into my scrap box and build a PPS with a home built
>OCXO as a spare time project. The NTP documentation stated t
>You've both commented that USB has drawbacks, but in reality what
>performance might be obtained? Not everyone needs microsecond precision,
>and USB might allow millisecond precision - i.e. possibly better than what
>might be obtained by Internet access alone, or by using a radio source.
>
>Has a
>I'm in a third category (probably) - as long as my PCs "sound" to have the
>same time, I'm happy. Actually, I want UTC as well, but as I have a
>speaking clock working on two PCs it's "nice" when they both speak at the
>same time. I wonder how close that needs to be - a few milliseconds,
>pe
