On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 01:47:33PM -0500, Paul wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 12:27 PM, David Taylor <
> david-tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>
> > When using the pool directive, NTP tries to get a certain total number of
> > servers. What is that number, please (I don't know where to f
Martin Burnicki writes:
> Harlan Stenn wrote:
> > David Taylor writes:
> >> I have a newly installed 64-bit Linux Debian 7.7 system where I am
> >> trying to bring up NTP with PPS support. Using ppstest /dev/pps0 I get
> >> the expected assert messages. I have gpsd configured and working.
> >> Ha
Martin Burnicki writes:
> Harlan Stenn wrote:
> > An alternative is that we get enough support to advance NTF's General
> > Timestamp API, and then we can run systems on either TAI or UTC and
> > these conversions will happen automatically.
> >
> > Since timescale files in the GTSAPI are "versioned
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:10 AM, Martin Burnicki <
martin.burni...@meinberg.de> wrote:
> OK, but what is the problem in using these IOCTLs directly from within
> ntpd, via wrapper functions or directly? Several refclock drivers do so.
>
You'll have to ask Harlan.
Paul wrote:
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Martin Burnicki <
martin.burni...@meinberg.de> wrote:
In the past there may have been reasons to check this at compile time, but
as I've already pointed out in another posting the checks could at least be
made at runtime on system which likely provid
Maybe you should read to the end of these threads before posting.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:34 PM, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added
to the BlackLists wrote:
> Increase TOS MinDist
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
http://list
On 16/12/2014 14:16, Martin Burnicki wrote:
Harlan Stenn wrote:
David Taylor writes:
I have a newly installed 64-bit Linux Debian 7.7 system where I am
trying to bring up NTP with PPS support. Using ppstest /dev/pps0 I get
the expected assert messages. I have gpsd configured and working.
Havi
On 16/12/2014 13:48, Martin Burnicki wrote:
William Unruh wrote:
[]
And since at build time, one has things called "configure" which CAN run
tests on the build system, one could easily enable or disable it then.
But since as we all know ntpd tends to built on one system and used on
myriads of
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:46 AM, Martin Burnicki <
martin.burni...@meinberg.de> wrote:
>
> I'm not familiar with the PPS API provided by {SCO,Solaris,SunOS}. The
header files have to match the implemented API, and at least the API
supported by current Linux systems should be conforming to the RFC w
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 10:45 PM, E-Mail Sent to this address will be added
to the BlackLists wrote:
> I would have guessed its more likely a timepps.h
> License term issue? Perhaps timepps.h GNU General Public
>
Licensing has never come up in the various discussions of this problem.
The vario
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Martin Burnicki <
martin.burni...@meinberg.de> wrote:
> In the past there may have been reasons to check this at compile time, but
> as I've already pointed out in another posting the checks could at least be
> made at runtime on system which likely provide a PPS A
Harlan Stenn wrote:
David Taylor writes:
I have a newly installed 64-bit Linux Debian 7.7 system where I am
trying to bring up NTP with PPS support. Using ppstest /dev/pps0 I get
the expected assert messages. I have gpsd configured and working.
Having configured and compiled NTP I get the erro
Harlan Stenn wrote:
Rob writes:
The file is only used at build time. It tells absolutely nothing
about the kernel configuration, certainly not in the system the binary
is running on.
You and I have completely different understandings about how APIs work
and what this header file is used for.
Harlan Stenn wrote:
Martin,
Martin Burnicki writes:
Harlan Stenn wrote:
Martin Burnicki writes:
IMO the best approach would be to detect this at runtime.
That means we'd need a header file...
It shouldn't be a problem to add this to the NTP code base.
If I'm not mistaken (and it's getti
William Unruh wrote:
On 2014-12-12, Rob wrote:
Harlan Stenn wrote:
Rob writes:
Harlan Stenn wrote:
If you disgree and think NTP should provide the file all the time, then:
- how do you propose we find out if the underlying API is really
provided in the currently-running kernel?
The sour
Harlan Stenn wrote:
An alternative is that we get enough support to advance NTF's General
Timestamp API, and then we can run systems on either TAI or UTC and
these conversions will happen automatically.
Since timescale files in the GTSAPI are "versioned", one could still use
an obsolete leapseco
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 10:13:43AM +, Rob wrote:
> In the NTP pool the servers are only put in the DNS when the monitoring
> system considers the time returned from that server sufficiently reliable.
> But the server can easily separate the queries from the monitoring system
> from the queries
An alternative is that we get enough support to advance NTF's General
Timestamp API, and then we can run systems on either TAI or UTC and
these conversions will happen automatically.
Since timescale files in the GTSAPI are "versioned", one could still use
an obsolete leapsecond file, and while tho
Miroslav Lichvar writes:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 05:43:59AM +, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> > d_anderson writes:
> > > Thanks! I quickly skimmed through the document, and I think I am
> > > asking the wrong questions..
> >
> > I've been trying to think of good reasons to authenticate pool servers
>
William Unruh wrote:
The importance of trades is usually a before/after. And UTC TAI, GPS all
have exactly the same definition of before and after. Of course if one
time was in UTC and the otehr in TAI, that could well be successfully
argued.
From a technical point I absolutely agree with you.
Brian Inglis wrote:
It would be interesting to know what percentage of the pool servers even
use
a leapseconds file, and how many of those have a valid copy.
I am certain that very few clients use a leapseconds file.
OTOH the timezone/zoneinfo package uses its own leapseconds file (for
"right"
t
Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 05:43:59AM +, Harlan Stenn wrote:
>> d_anderson writes:
>> > Thanks! I quickly skimmed through the document, and I think I am
>> > asking the wrong questions..
>>
>> I've been trying to think of good reasons to authenticate pool servers
>> and
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 05:43:59AM +, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> d_anderson writes:
> > Thanks! I quickly skimmed through the document, and I think I am
> > asking the wrong questions..
>
> I've been trying to think of good reasons to authenticate pool servers
> and I haven't come up with any good
23 matches
Mail list logo
