Bruce,
I'm wondering whether there may be a glitch in the firmware supplied on that
unit. The fact that it worked fine up until the other day, and then reverted
its date seems rather odd. I don't believe it's anything to do with cross
correlation as has been suggested. Unfortunately Odetics is
Hi Guys,
I have often heard it said that since RS-232 is more deterministic,
and suffers from less jitter, and uncertainties, than ethernet, that
it makes a better medium for time distribution (no CDMA for a start).
(Especially if you know how many bits you need to squirt over the
RS-232 link at
Just off-hand I would think that at best serial might perform as well as
ethernet, But could be (much) worse.
First off, modern ethernet implementations are not really CDMA. they run
full duplex into buffered switches.
I would think that serialization delay and packet processing variations
at
On 10/23/2011 02:37 PM, Tijd Dingen wrote:
I seriously doubt that piping it through slip is going to help. You still get
to deal with slip + tcp protocol stack. I would expect gbit ethernet with
possibly some fifo/buffering setting adjusted gets you better performance that
RS232 (with or
In message 4ea411f5.1030...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
On 10/23/2011 02:37 PM, Tijd Dingen wrote:
The danger of Ethernet is that it has high capacity and a interconnect
friendly interface. Thus, you might feel inclined to toss data over it
carlessly causing packet delays and
On 10/23/11 6:15 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message4ea411f5.1030...@rubidium.dyndns.org, Magnus Danielson writes:
On 10/23/2011 02:37 PM, Tijd Dingen wrote:
The danger of Ethernet is that it has high capacity and a interconnect
friendly interface. Thus, you might feel inclined to toss
Magnus have the 5061 assembly using a 5060 tube. Not sure that would help.
I find virtually no information on the 5060.
Never seen a manual.
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL
On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 6:21 PM, Magnus Danielson
mag...@rubidium.dyndns.org wrote:
Fellow time-nuts,
Anyone out there which could
The danger of Ethernet is that it has high capacity and a interconnect
friendly interface. Thus, you might feel inclined to toss data over it
carlessly causing packet delays and you can hook it into a switch and
get delays and packet losses there.
I usually cure that by using
Jim Lux wrote:
if you're talking asynchronous RS232 (the by far most common, these days)
off hand, I'd expect the jitter to be on the order of 1/8 bit time, uniformly
distributed. An awful lot of UART implementations generate a 8x clock to
sample the input and find the rising edge of
the
On 10/23/2011 06:31 PM, paul swed wrote:
Magnus have the 5061 assembly using a 5060 tube. Not sure that would help.
I find virtually no information on the 5060.
Never seen a manual.
Regards
Paul
WB8TSL
I have the 5060A manual, but it is a little to brief to properly assist
me. I got a strong
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Iain Young i...@g7iii.net wrote:
Hi Guys,
I have often heard it said that since RS-232 is more deterministic,
and suffers from less jitter, and uncertainties, than ethernet, that
it makes a better medium for time distribution (no CDMA for a start).
I think
On 10/23/11 10:02 AM, Tijd Dingen wrote:
Jim Lux wrote:
if you're talking asynchronous RS232 (the by far most common, these days)
off hand, I'd expect the jitter to be on the order of 1/8 bit time, uniformly
distributed. An awful lot of UART implementations generate a 8x clock to
sample
On 10/23/2011 07:15 PM, Chris Albertson wrote:
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 2:28 AM, Iain Youngi...@g7iii.net wrote:
Hi Guys,
I have often heard it said that since RS-232 is more deterministic,
and suffers from less jitter, and uncertainties, than ethernet, that
it makes a better medium for time
In message 4ea45815.5080...@earthlink.net, Jim Lux writes:
I'd have to go back to some pretty old
databooks, but I'll bet the x8 thing has been around since the 70s. Why
8, and not 4, is a better question...
The original standards text describes this in some detail, but I can't
remember which
On 10/23/11 11:39 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message4ea45815.5080...@earthlink.net, Jim Lux writes:
I'd have to go back to some pretty old
databooks, but I'll bet the x8 thing has been around since the 70s. Why
8, and not 4, is a better question...
The original standards text describes
In message 4ea481bd.20...@earthlink.net, Jim Lux writes:
On 10/23/11 11:39 AM, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
I think the electromechanicals top out at 110 bps, [...]
Actually 300 bps.
Tape readers/punches were much faster than type-writers and later
typewriters (ball/daisy-wheel) were also faster
I am in the time-nuts list, and interested in buying 10 26 MHz OCXO.
Payment by Paypal, shipping to Brazil by USPS, with tracking number.
What will be the price? Do you have the full part number, including the EFC
range?
--
Geraldo Lino de Campos
Fascinating thread.
Poul-Henning Kamp mentions contact prell.
Google can't find it. Even quoted, I get shampoo and people with that name.
I understand well contact bounce and contact dwell, but what is the meaning
of prell?
Bill Hawkins
-Original Message-
From: Poul-Henning Kamp
On 10/24/2011 05:14 AM, Doug Calvert wrote:
On 10/23/2011 08:37 AM, Tijd Dingen wrote:
I seriously doubt that piping it through slip is going to help. You
still get to deal with slip + tcp protocol stack. I would expect gbit
ethernet with possibly some fifo/buffering setting adjusted gets you
On 10/24/2011 12:26 AM, Magnus Danielson wrote:
On 10/24/2011 05:14 AM, Doug Calvert wrote:
On 10/23/2011 08:37 AM, Tijd Dingen wrote:
I seriously doubt that piping it through slip is going to help. You
still get to deal with slip + tcp protocol stack. I would expect gbit
ethernet with
I think gig ethernet has a higher delay for smaller packets (ntp's udp
datagram is tiny) than 100mbit ethernet.
There is very little to support this claim.
Most gig-ethernet chips try to save CPU cycles by batching interrupts. There
is usually some way to turn it off. I don't have any
21 matches
Mail list logo
