Yo Hal!
On Wed, 31 Aug 2016 01:19:49 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> g...@rellim.com said:
> > Saving power is good, but I suspect the extra power is minimal. I
> > hace USB power meters, so we can measure this.
>
> It depends on the details. You can save a lot of power by turning
> stuff off. T
g...@rellim.com said:
> Saving power is good, but I suspect the extra power is minimal. I hace USB
> power meters, so we can measure this.
It depends on the details. You can save a lot of power by turning stuff off.
The more you turn off, the more power you save but the longer it takes to
g
Yo Hal!
On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 23:24:26 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> > Hm. I think I get it - and you've just added a pretty powerful
> > reason to eventually pull the refclocks into a separate daemon by
> > telling me I need to get ntpd itself out of the PPS-watching
> > business entirely in order to
> Hm. I think I get it - and you've just added a pretty powerful reason to
> eventually pull the refclocks into a separate daemon by telling me I need to
> get ntpd itself out of the PPS-watching business entirely in order to get
> rid of that timer.
The reason I want to get rid of the every-sec
Yo Eric!
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 20:07:21 -0400
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> Gary E. Miller :
> > Sadly, PPS with the current algorithm should bump up to sampling
> > every one-half second. Some even want 10 Hz or even 100 Hz.
> >
> > Let us leave it on the long-term to-do list and not hash over it
Gary E. Miller :
> Sadly, PPS with the current algorithm should bump up to sampling every
> one-half second. Some even want 10 Hz or even 100 Hz.
>
> Let us leave it on the long-term to-do list and not hash over it now.
> The subject is complicated and contentious. Way too many moving parts
> in
Yo Hal!
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 16:13:04 -0700
Hal Murray wrote:
> > Yeah, been looking at that. Since ntpd is undersampling the PPS it
> > can be either good, or real bad. I'm tempted to get Eric to fix
> > the bug first, but maybe I'll need to data so he sees the bug
> > first.
>
> I don't k
Yo Eric!
On Tue, 23 Aug 2016 19:32:55 -0400
"Eric S. Raymond" wrote:
> Hal Murray :
> >We
> > should get rid of the current every-second timer unless some
> > refclock needs it. (battery power) The PPS API has an optional
> > wait/
Hal Murray :
>We should
> get rid of the current every-second timer unless some refclock needs it.
> (battery power) The PPS API has an optional wait/wakeup option. We should
> use that if available. The timer stuff also covers
> Yeah, been looking at that. Since ntpd is undersampling the PPS it can be
> either good, or real bad. I'm tempted to get Eric to fix the bug first, but
> maybe I'll need to data so he sees the bug first.
I don't know of any ntpd bug in this area. Do you have a test case? Or data
from a bu
10 matches
Mail list logo
