[Beowulf] IEEE 1588 (PTP) - a better cluster clock?
Many of your questions may have already been answered in earlier discussions or in the FAQ. The search results page will indicate current discussions as well as past list serves, articles, and papers.
Jim Lux James.P.Lux at jpl.nasa.govTue Jul 24 16:40:06 PDT 2007
- Previous message: [Beowulf] IEEE 1588 (PTP) - a better cluster clock?
- Next message: [Beowulf] IEEE 1588 (PTP) - a better cluster clock?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
At 01:11 PM 7/24/2007, Patrick Geoffray wrote: >Hi Jim, > >Jim Lux wrote: >>Highly parallelized real time signal processing? Seems like a classic > >Wouldn't you need a real-time OS and a real-time communication layer >to do real-time processing? Or at least within the same level of >time accuracy ? not necessarily. >The Linux scheduler is still on a 10ms quantum of time, and QoS in >network is still about what to drop first, not guaranteeing resources. Consider something where you had something like a frame grabber. you might need microsecond precision for some aspects, but just guarantees of sufficient resources for farther back in the chain. >If PTP is as good (accuracy, resource usage) as the specialized >methods, then using a common implementation is the best deal. >However, application-specific/architecture-specific synchronization >may be more efficient. The trade-off is between the performance of >the first versus the cost of the second. That's the rule behind >commodity solutions. Indeed.. >Patrick James Lux, P.E. Spacecraft Radio Frequency Subsystems Group Flight Communications Systems Section Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Mail Stop 161-213 4800 Oak Grove Drive Pasadena CA 91109 tel: (818)354-2075 fax: (818)393-6875
- Previous message: [Beowulf] IEEE 1588 (PTP) - a better cluster clock?
- Next message: [Beowulf] IEEE 1588 (PTP) - a better cluster clock?
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the Beowulf mailing list
