| Re: [chrony-users] refclock local |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More chrony.tuxfamily.org/chrony-users Archives
]
- To: chrony-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [chrony-users] refclock local
- From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 8 Aug 2023 14:33:10 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1691497993; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=KDjoBn4rX6z5IHxAnHQb6puBdyzAo8jvWA8G6hJa59Y=; b=SVQIC286iNg6pkwbn0Ra0VoPGhUWHd/zIHufWi9YJkoVkdVPUkF4L15iH6JAm7QtuTxSzE vfCV99mqWUfetWROw97dmMfrUCk2+16FgJ3ix7GtfZQb9US6ajIcnA9ItGa4zVUGDeCoJv 4PfZPYEQzx+/fy+hODlaDf5PQsWwGhI=
On Tue, Aug 08, 2023 at 08:15:35AM -0400, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> I understood this to mean:
>
> 1. some of the sanity check are skipped (e.g., checking phase alignment
> with other sources)
> 2. the source will be used for *frequency* calculations
> 3. the source will not be used for *phase* calculations
>
> So, based on these, I expected chrony to report some random but very stable
> offset but still make (partial) use of the clock.
>
> Is my understanding wrong?
I think it's good.
The chronyc reports in your original post are as expected.
The reported phase offset is expected to drift slowly between -1 and 1
seconds with occasional jumps when the maximum is reached.
The most useful report would be sourcestats. If the stabilization
works well, the skew of other sources should become smaller and they
should use more samples (NP). With a refclock on USB (which adds a lot
of jitter) I'd not expect it to perform very well. You can try longer
polling intervals and more filtering.
--
Miroslav Lichvar
--
To unsubscribe email chrony-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with "unsubscribe" in the subject.
For help email chrony-users-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
with "help" in the subject.
Trouble? Email listmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.