On 2013-05-20, unruh wrote:
> On 2013-05-20, David Woolley wrote:
>> Mischanko, Edward T wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone know what setting can be changed that will cause
>>> tighter regulation of the offset. My goal is to get clk_wander to
>>
>> Why do you want to track network propagation delay chang
On 2013-05-20, David Woolley wrote:
> Mischanko, Edward T wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know what setting can be changed that will cause
>> tighter regulation of the offset. My goal is to get clk_wander to
>
> Why do you want to track network propagation delay changes, at the
> expense of accurate tim
On 2013-05-20, Mischanko, Edward T wrote:
> Hello friends,
>
> Does anyone know what setting can be changed that will cause
> tighter regulation of the offset. My goal is to get clk_wander to
> equal as close to zero as possible more often. I would also like
> to see the frequency adjusted with
On 20/05/2013 14:42, Brian Utterback wrote:
> Okay, that looks really weird. Just the rate of the packets seems very
> off, only 10s of milliseconds between packets.
>
> The system whose IP address ends in b900::1:1 doesn't like it.
the host ...:1:1 is my server. He is configured to ask time fro
Mischanko, Edward T wrote:>
The particular client I am monitoring is on an extremely stable corporate
LAN. The servers are on the same LAN. Changes in network propagation
are minimal.
On the other hand, it is on Windows, which doesn't have very stable time
measurement.
The 8 stage minimu
David Woolley wrote:
Mischanko, Edward T wrote:>
2) an analysis of the breakdown of errors between the crystal frequency,
Windows load related errors, and network load related error.
In particular, unless your main error source is changes in crystal
frequency, in which case the best approac
Okay, that looks really weird. Just the rate of the packets seems very
off, only 10s of milliseconds between packets.
The system whose IP address ends in b900::1:1 doesn't like it. The
second packet it sends is a KOD packet that is complaining about the
high rate of packets, and then it shuts
Hello David Taylor,
Yes, reducing maxpoll does help. The expense to the network is minimal
for my one client. But, what if everybody in the whole world did that
to get better regulation? I am trying to learn of possible tweeks in the code
to better the program as a whole.
Regards,
Ed
> -
David,
The particular client I am monitoring is on an extremely stable corporate
LAN. The servers are on the same LAN. Changes in network propagation
are minimal.
The 8 stage minimum delay filter is exactly what I am seeing and exactly
what I would like to disable. When polling above 256 secon
Mischanko, Edward T wrote:
Does anyone know what setting can be changed that will cause
tighter regulation of the offset. My goal is to get clk_wander to
Why do you want to track network propagation delay changes, at the
expense of accurate time keeping?
equal as close to zero as possible
On 20/05/2013 08:58, Mischanko, Edward T wrote:
Hello friends,
Does anyone know what setting can be changed that will cause
tighter regulation of the offset. My goal is to get clk_wander to
equal as close to zero as possible more often. I would also like
to see the frequency adjusted with ever
Hello friends,
Does anyone know what setting can be changed that will cause
tighter regulation of the offset. My goal is to get clk_wander to
equal as close to zero as possible more often. I would also like
to see the frequency adjusted with every change in offset data;
it currently does not app
12 matches
Mail list logo
