RE: [chrony-dev] PPS reference clock rejected because of high dispersion

["Hattink, Tjalling [FINT]" <T.Hattink@xxxxxxxx>]

> > What I understand is that you have a slightly different meaning for
> > the lock directive, maybe my scenario should be a different setting
> > than "lock"? Maybe call it "relate"?
> >
> > So "relate" will mean the PPS is only accepted when the related
> > refclock is accepted, but timestamps are still derived from the
local
> > clock, and "lock" will mean the PPS timestamp are derived from the
> > related refclock. What do you think of this?
> 
> Yes, that could be a new feature, but wouldn't that be just a
> workaround for the problem with PPS getting stuck? We need to fix that
> anyway.
> 

The filter getting stuck is indeed a separate problem and should be
fixed. The problem is less likely to occur when 'relate' is used instead
of 'lock', but I don't see it as a workaround. More like two separate
things (a feature and a bug)

Best regards,

Tjalling

--
To unsubscribe email chrony-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with "unsubscribe" in the subject.
For help email chrony-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx with "help" in the subject.
Trouble?  Email listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.