On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 3:55:02 AM UTC-5, Marco Marongiu wrote:
> On 21/01/15 15:31, Mike S wrote:
> > On 1/21/2015 2:10 AM, Mike Cook wrote:
> >> And one of the reasons why a significant portion of the computing
> >> community wants to get rid of leap seconds. A coverup for bad
> >> enginee
I do the latter. To use PTP to timestamp one would have to modify NTP source
outside of refclock_phc(), which we would not presume to do. However the PHC
loopstats has a standard deviation of 0.58 microseconds, so we are not far off
in using standard NTP timestamping.
Rich Schmidt
> Do you
On Saturday, November 23, 2013 1:20:37 AM UTC-5, Brian Inglis wrote:
> On 2013-11-22 14:12, unruh wrote:
> My point is that without other indicators, these are just another bunch of
> ref clock
>
> timestamps being delivered into the discipline control loop.
>
> When these are known to be high q
On Friday, November 22, 2013 12:38:36 PM UTC-5, unruh wrote:
> On 2013-11-22, schmidt.r...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > I have just written a PHC driver for NTP and tested it on this system:
>
> > Supermicro SYS-50150EHF-D525 which has a pair of Intel 82574L NICs which
>
> > have IEEE 1588 hardware-
I have just written a PHC driver for NTP and tested it on this system:
Supermicro SYS-50150EHF-D525 which has a pair of Intel 82574L NICs which
have IEEE 1588 hardware-based timestamping. I'm using NTP dev 4.2.7p397 on
Linux kernel 3.12 with linuxptp. One of the PHCs is sync'd via PTP to an FEI
Not 3 or 4 years, likely by June or December 2010.
Rich Schmidt
> Unfortunately we will have to wait 3 or 4 years for the next test.
>
> >Cheers,
> >David
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/question
Please see http://tycho.usno.navy.mil/leap_second_poll.html
Rich Schmidt
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
