From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Mon, 19 May 2014 15:59:04 -0400
To: bakul@bitblocks.com, 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <3a6dcbf0845989d60e627ad4e5df4313@ladd.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <20140519195016.B21E6B827@mail.bitblocks.com>
References: <92606a17ce255a2e74049e4090d948b3@proxima.alt.za>
	<36c5eca0f06e9acbe2fac19067f457d8@ladd.quanstro.net>
	<20140519195016.B21E6B827@mail.bitblocks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [9fans] syscall 53
Topicbox-Message-UUID: e8c3d8e4-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> I am adding some logic to synchronize with the PPS signal from
> the GPS device that I hooked up to a RaspberryPi.  With this
> change the TOD clock should be accurate to within 10 to 20 =C2=B5s.
> So I for one welcome the new syscall! [Though its introduction
> could've been better managed]

even a syscall on a rpi is going to cost you at least 5-10=C2=B5s
and clock drift will make this, and your second point very hard.

> But using a TOD clock for measuring performance seems wrong
> since it will also have to account for leapseconds (at the
> moment timesync happily ignores leapseconds).

- erik