Mark.Martinec at ijs.si
Sat Dec 18 17:47:18 PST 2004
It looks I found the second bug which was giving me grey hair ever since
I started playing with the addition of the pps atom driver to my setup.
Remember, the symptoms were that, when the atom refclock was there
but given a 'noselect' (and after widening the RANGEGATE in atom driver
from 0.5 ms to 5 ms), everything looked nice and well, the logged
offset samples from both the pps clock and from the remote ntp peer
were in accordance with each other when examining the plot.
As soon as I remove the 'noselect' on the pps, what started happening
was the loop offset jumped to about +2ms or to about -2ms
(altering between the two every couple of hours).
The setup is: a remote ntp server is flagged as 'prefer' and is in charge
or counting seconds, and the pps comes in via atom driver. No other
clock driver is present.
It was a mystery why the offset was kept for hours at some 2 ms,
and the loop frequency was not adjusted to correct it.
The quantum leap was when I realized that there is about 4ms
difference between the upper and the lower stable offset,
which happens to be about half the roundtrip delay to the
remote preferred ntp server.
Guess what, the 4ms correction was coming from a huffpuff buffer,
and it was issuing correction even when the pps source became selected!!!
So the pps was being kicked in and out of being selected.
When it was in, it was inappropriately given a 4ms correction
by a huffpuff filter (which should only apply to network peer).
When pps was kicked out for being a falseticker, the offset
was correct again for some time. The unfortunate and confused
loop filter decided that the best truth was somewhere inbetween,
so it was either +2ms or -2ms off.
Turning off huffpuff avoided the problem entirely,
and the plot is now as it should be.
- ntp_loopfilter.c needs to be fixed to not apply huffpuff correction
to the pps signal;
- the atom driver needs to have rangegate widened from 0.5 ms to 5ms
as is in its specifications
P.S. (sorry for the double mail, I posted the first one from a wrong address)
More information about the hackers