[ntp:questions] Slow convergence loopstats (but nice results)
Brian.Inglis at SystematicSw.ab.ca
Sat Nov 23 06:20:37 UTC 2013
On 2013-11-22 14:12, unruh wrote:
> On 2013-11-22, Brian Inglis <Brian.Inglis at SystematicSw.ab.ca> wrote:
>> On 2013-11-22 09:19, schmidt.rich at gmail.com wrote:
>>> I have just written a PHC driver for NTP and tested it on this system:
>>> Supermicro SYS-50150EHF-D525 which has a pair of Intel 82574L NICs which have
>>> IEEE 1588 hardware-based timestamping. I'm using NTP dev 4.2.7p397 onLinux
>>> kernel 3.12 with linuxptp. One of the PHCs is sync'd via PTP to an FEIZyfer
>>> Gsync GrandMaster, which is in turn synced via 5MHz to the USNO Master Clock #2.
>>> I'm running ptp4l to sync PHC1 to the GrandMaster. Then NTP is reading the
>>> refclocks PHC0, PHC1 and an NTP server on the LAN ptp2:
>>> ntpq -p
>>> remote refid st t when poll reach delay offset jitter
>>> +PHC(0) .PTP. 0 l 15 16 377 0.000 0.000 0.000
>>> *PHC(1) .PTP. 0 l 2 16 377 0.000 -0.001 0.000
>>> +ptp2 .IRIG. 1 u 38 64 377 0.123 0.018 0.007
>>> After about 15 hours the loopstats shows a s.d. of +/- 0.579 microsec with
>>> peak-peak 2.52 microsec (3,073 points). Very superb.
>>> However, it took fully 75 minutes at start to converge. It took that long to
>>> remove 20ms of phase error. I have never seen such a slow convergence. Very
>>> smooth too. I have tested the NMEA/ATOM drivers on this system and the
>>> convergence was the normal few minutes. Any suggestions? Can email plots..
>>> Rich Schmidt
>>> Time Service Dept
>>> US Naval Observatory
>> You do not appear to be delivering PPS via kernel PPS, an ATOM driver, or user mode
>> PPS, with PHC0/1 as your prefer peer. You want to see o before your ref clock, so
>> that may explain slow convergence compared to using the ATOM driver!
>> Does Linux PTP have an interface to provide timestamp interrupts to Linux kernel PPS,
>> and can you set that up, or add user mode PPS to your driver? There are example user
>> mode PPS patches for Raspberry Pi Raspian Linux NTP, and in
> He says he is using a NIC which has hardware timestamping on it. Thus
> the interrupt is irrelevant. The timestamping is already done before the
> computer ever gets the packet. He wrote a driver (whever PCH stands
> for). I guess the key problem with a hardware timestamp NIC is to get a
> good estimate of the time difference between the NIC clock and the
> system clock.
My point is that without other indicators, these are just another bunch of ref clock
timestamps being delivered into the discipline control loop.
When these are known to be high quality samples, that needs to be indicated to ntpd
by adapting the PPS and/or kernel APIs, as those appear to be the only ways to
influence ntpd, as documented at http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/ntp/html/extern.html
under External Clock Discipline.
Take care. Thanks, Brian Inglis
More information about the questions