On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:59:37AM -0400, Doug wrote: > On 10/16/2012 02:07 AM, Paul E Condon wrote: > >On 20121015_214840, John Hasler wrote: > >>Paul E Condon writes: > >>>Ideas? > >>Run cronyc and post the results of the "tracking" and "sources" > >>commands. > >>-- > >>John Hasler > >I've now switched to chrony. The offset between 'atomic clock' and > >Gnome clock display remains greater than 15sec. Its hard to be more > >precise because I can't get the clock and the computer in my field of > >vision simultaneously. But, no way do they agree to anything like > >under a second. I do have an always on connection to the internet, and > >I did take care to remove the 'offline's from the chrony.conf. > > > >root@big:/var/log/chrony# chronyc tracking > >Reference ID : 204.235.61.9 (name1.glorb.com) > >Stratum : 3 > >Ref time (UTC) : Tue Oct 16 05:47:52 2012 > >System time : 0.000000121 seconds fast of NTP time > >Frequency : 190.723 ppm fast > >Residual freq : -6.591 ppm > >Skew : 2.035 ppm > >Root delay : 0.099491 seconds > >Root dispersion : 0.186323 seconds > >root@big:/var/log/chrony# chronyc sources > >210 Number of sources = 4 > >MS Name/IP address Stratum Poll LastRx Last sample > >============================================================================ > >^* name1.glorb.com 2 8 191 +1029us[ +950us] +/- 90ms > >^+ d7.hotfile.com 2 8 184 +13ms[ +13ms] +/- 62ms > >^? lttleman.deekayen.net 0 10 10y +0ns[ +0ns] +/- 0ns > >^+ vpn.cumquat.nl 2 8 177 +17ms[ +17ms] +/- 103ms I notice here, that you're not actually reading the time from your atomic clock. A local clock uses a pseudo IP address of "127.127.x.y" (where x is a driver reference number and y is a clock instance number). However, that shouldn't be a problem as, according to chrony you are syncronised to within a tiny fraction of a second to the correct time. Instead, I would suggest that it is your wall clock that is running slow. Is there any sort of indicator on it which would tell you if the radio signal is weak? 18 seconds sounds suspiciously like a GPS-time offset, but I think that's a red-herring. > >root@big:/var/log/chrony# > > > > A receiver for WWVB at 60KHz that would decode the signals would be > as accurate as anyone could want. That's the signal that your "atomic" > clock receives, so the clock *should* be accurate. You might only be > able to receive the signal in the nighttime hours, like the clock. > Typically, the clock will sync up at about 2AM local time, and a WWVB > receiver would basically do the same thing, with an accurate crystal > oscillator as an internal reference to keep time when no signal is > being received. Such a receiver would probably cost over $1000, > at a guess, but that's the difference between a scientific reference > and a $20 "atomic" clock! Sorry, did you just suggest that the solution for the OP's problem with a radio controlled clock is... a radio controlled clock? > > --doug > > -- > Blessed are the peacekeepers...for they shall be shot at from both sides. --A.M. Greeley > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a > subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact > listmaster@lists.debian.org > Archive: [🔎] 507D05D9.2000609@optonline.net">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 507D05D9.2000609@optonline.net >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature