[ntp:questions] Time server question

Jakob Bohm jb-usenet at wisemo.com.invalid
Wed Jul 24 06:19:12 UTC 2019

On 24/07/2019 08:07, William Unruh wrote:
> On 2019-07-24, Jakob Bohm <jb-usenet at wisemo.com.invalid> wrote:
>> On 21/07/2019 16:02, Terje Mathisen wrote:
>>> William Unruh wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> No. The mechanism is clear. While one is answering its interrupt the
>>>> other gets to wait. So, it is the earliest one that is closest to
>>>> "right" Ie, do not try to use more than one interrupt on the same
>>>> computer. It does not work
>>> A good timing-optimized gps unit, like the original Oncore, have a sw
>>> mechanism to offset the PPS event away from the actual top of the
>>> second, as well as a way for the sw protocol that numbers the PPS
>>> signals to also specify how far away this particular pulse is from the
>>> actual event.
>>> I.e. with an internal 10 MHz clock, PPS signals will be synced to one of
>>> those 100 ns-wide periods, so it can/will be at least up to +/-50 ns
>>> away from the proper moment, but when the driver knows about this, it
>>> can adjust perfectly for that effect.
>>> Terje
>> I happen to have a GPS unit (not yet connected) that is documented to do
>> this too: The PPS pulse occurs at an edge of the internal crystal clock,
>> but a special NMEA statement states (based on the 4D GPS solution) how
>> many ns it is off for each pulse.  I have yet to find the point to pass
>> this offset to ntpd after capturing the PPS arrival time.
> The problem is this is largely irrelevant. The time it takes the
> computer to respond to an interrupt id far far larger (and variable)
> than that offset of the pulse which is on the at most 10s of nsec scale.
> The computer responds on the usec scale (que the interrupt, the comp
> responds to the que and loads or branches to the interrupt service
> routine. The routine reads the system clock. All that takes time and a
> variable amount of time. Ie, you need specialised hardware to make use
> of that information, and, I thought, usually that infomation was
> delivered by the gps unit a lond time after the pulse itself. Ie, it is
> useful for rewriting history, not for the immediate time.

The hardware under consideration can time the pulse arrivals more
precisely than the interrupt delivery time, thanks to special hardware.

Once that has been set up (in the future), the next problem becomes
applying the higher precision offset to the time source data input to
the ntp algorithms.

At a higher abstraction level this means telling ntp that "at
hhmmss.xxxxxxxxx (local clock), a time stamp of hhmmss.yyyyyyyyy
arrived from this hardware time source".


Jakob Bohm, CIO, Partner, WiseMo A/S.  https://www.wisemo.com
Transformervej 29, 2860 Søborg, Denmark.  Direct +45 31 13 16 10
This public discussion message is non-binding and may contain errors.
WiseMo - Remote Service Management for PCs, Phones and Embedded

More information about the questions mailing list