| Re: [chrony-users] setserial low_latency - is it necessary? |
[ Thread Index |
Date Index
| More chrony.tuxfamily.org/chrony-users Archives
]
- To: chrony-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [chrony-users] setserial low_latency - is it necessary?
- From: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2024 09:02:13 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1718607741; 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=U778IHtoRzpiFh1JsNPNm35VUWQr6Hevkt3uoy0fogE=; b=Hjyp2nylCPDxCgLH5AG1RpMRydEV07kShjSP7a89a1C27jySOvflK1eTVWiTLfrraOeDGR yt83MkcA5BVZ/wWlS8LSsrhKCmE7yGLkvGeAnPvaAu6wV9qXBLhSjqJptNIqGOf57J1XyT 89h5ZX+ULL8rl+iu0ER1Ewvgyy6/XpE=
On Thu, Jun 13, 2024 at 08:22:03PM +0000, Sviatoslav Feshchenko wrote:
> - Is the 1PPS signal buffered if "low_latency" is NOT set?
I don't think it is. It should trigger the interrupt immediately.
> - Is it necessary to configure the serial port for "low_latency" if 1PPS signal is available on the DCD pin, when the goal is to maximize the accuracy of the 1PPS signal?
>
For PPS it shouldn't matter. Easy to verify. Plot the raw offset from
the refclocks log, switch the low_latency flag, and see if there are
any jumps or changes in stability.
--
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.