William Unruh wrote:
On 2014-03-16, Joe Gwinn wrote:
I keep seeing claims that Precision Time Protocol (IEEE 1588-2008) can
achieve sub-microsecond to nanosecond-level synchronization over
ethernet (with the right hardware to be sure).
I've been reading IEEE 1588-2008, and they do talk of one
David Woolley wrote:
Why would they treat it as a bug? Microsoft make money by selling
server licences, so clients should be accessing their time from those
servers. They provide software to run on those servers, to provide that
time.
One result of using reference ntpd is that you can use a wo
In article , William Unruh
wrote:
> On 2014-03-16, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> > I keep seeing claims that Precision Time Protocol (IEEE 1588-2008) can
> > achieve sub-microsecond to nanosecond-level synchronization over
> > ethernet (with the right hardware to be sure).
> >
> > I've been reading IEEE 15
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 12:01 AM, Danny Mayer wrote:
> A patch WAS submitted for this though it was done inline instead of as
> an attachment
I added a patch against p433 as an attachment.
I recommend that you mark it as possibly blocking 4.2.8
>
How to do that isn't immediately obvious and I
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> Yes. My question is basically a query about the current state of the
> art.
>
Some NTP offsets (output may look funny if formatted) clock1 looking at
clock2 and clock3 (a Raspberry Pi). This suggests it can be as good as
your IRIG system.
Gi
On 2014-03-17, Martin Burnicki wrote:
> William Unruh wrote:
>> On 2014-03-16, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>> I keep seeing claims that Precision Time Protocol (IEEE 1588-2008) can
>>> achieve sub-microsecond to nanosecond-level synchronization over
>>> ethernet (with the right hardware to be sure).
>>>
>>
William Unruh wrote:
On 2014-03-17, Martin Burnicki wrote:
If you have a counter chain clocked by 20 MHz then the timestamps
captured when PTP packets are going out or are coming in have a
resolution of 50 ns.
I am not saying that a computer or a piece of hardware cannot have a 1
ns resoltuio
On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 08:50:08 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>
> Yes. My question is basically a query about the current state of the
> art.
In Cable headends they are using the DTI interface/protocol to sync
multiple boxes to within a few(5) ns.
/hjj
___
quest
Joe,
On 16/03/14 23:16, Joe Gwinn wrote:
I recall seeing something from Dr. Mills saying that a formal proof had
been found showing that no packet-exchange protocol (like NTP) could
tell delay asymmetry from clock offset. Can anyone provide a reference
to this proof?
It's relative simple.
Yo
On 17/03/14 09:48, Martin Burnicki wrote:
William Unruh wrote:
On 2014-03-16, Joe Gwinn wrote:
I keep seeing claims that Precision Time Protocol (IEEE 1588-2008) can
achieve sub-microsecond to nanosecond-level synchronization over
ethernet (with the right hardware to be sure).
I've been readi
On 17/03/14 13:50, Joe Gwinn wrote:
In article , William Unruh
wrote:
On 2014-03-16, Joe Gwinn wrote:
I keep seeing claims that Precision Time Protocol (IEEE 1588-2008) can
achieve sub-microsecond to nanosecond-level synchronization over
ethernet (with the right hardware to be sure).
I've b
Promise of a Second Death Coming
So you should come comfort me Jesus and say, Yes I was with you Abba and this
has been a bittersweet heaven up until this point. We'll correct it after you
die. I am sure you will come liking it again.
Again be liking, come will you surety be I.
Death you had afte
In article
,
Paul wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:50 AM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
>
> > Yes. My question is basically a query about the current state of the
> > art.
> >
>
> Some NTP offsets (output may look funny if formatted) clock1 looking at
> clock2 and clock3 (a Raspberry Pi). This suggests
In article , Hans Jørgen Jakobsen
wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2014 08:50:08 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >
> > Yes. My question is basically a query about the current state of the
> > art.
> In Cable headends they are using the DTI interface/protocol to sync
> multiple boxes to within a few(5) ns.
I'm
In article <532778bf.50...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson
wrote:
> On 17/03/14 13:50, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> > In article , William Unruh
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 2014-03-16, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> >>> I keep seeing claims that Precision Time Protocol (IEEE 1588-2008) can
> >>> achieve sub-micros
In article <5327757e.5040...@rubidium.dyndns.org>, Magnus Danielson
wrote:
> Joe,
>
> On 16/03/14 23:16, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> > I recall seeing something from Dr. Mills saying that a formal proof had
> > been found showing that no packet-exchange protocol (like NTP) could
> > tell delay asymmetry
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:09 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> I'm not familiar with DTI.
>
Look for DOCSIS timing interface. The tight specs mentioned earlier are
over a backplane although the in-premises numbers are sub-microsecond.
___
questions mailing list
Joe Gwinn wrote:> But my question is about the state of the art in PTP systems,
not
> systems in general.
(Shrug) I have Seven {About $500kUSD} AB GuardLogix Systems
using AB {ODVA} CIP Sync IEEE 1588-2008 standard for time synchronization.
It is not using any NTP, GPS, or IRIGB clock source
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 8:07 PM, Joe Gwinn wrote:
> People are also lusting after sub-microsecond sync.
Sure but not optimally in comp.protocols.ntp/questions@lists.ntp.org.
With some help NTP can be quite good but the intent really isn't nanosecond
accuracy.
___
Joe Gwinn wrote:> Magnus Danielson wrote:
>> Joe Gwinn wrote:
>>> Yes. My question is basically a query about the current state
>>> of the art [in PTP].
>>
>> The state of the art is not yet standard and not yet off the shelf
>> products, if you want to call it PTP.
>
> This is my fear and instin
On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 9:33 PM, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
> Will it do 100 meters or more, in bad neighborhoods?
I'm not the right person to ask but since it is expected to maintain
between 2.5 and 100 nanosecond sync with CPE nodes (cable modems) I assume
it requires RF techniques not readily avai
On 3/17/2014 6:37 PM, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the
BlackLists wrote:
> Joe Gwinn wrote:> Magnus Danielson wrote:
>>> Joe Gwinn wrote:
Yes. My question is basically a query about the current state
of the art [in PTP].
>>>
>>> The state of the art is not yet standard
22 matches
Mail list logo
