[Asterisk-Users] Re: ztdummy inaccuracy on linux-2.6

[Tamas]

Hello Tony!

Many thanks for your valuable comments! I will write back results when I
will have some ;) This box is under preparation for production, I was
making low-level tests and some kernel/system tunings. Hopefully will
have some practical experiences (with this box) soon.

Thanks again!

Kind regards,
    Tamas

Tony Mountifield wrote:
> In article <43CBCD3F.9050006 at gmail.com>, Tamas <jalsot at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have some ugly numbers given by zttest for ztdummy on an AMD64 box
>> running linux-2.6.15 compiled for Athlon64.
>>     
>
> Don't be misled by the apparent ugliness of the numbers! Are you hearing
> any effects in the audio? If not, then stop worrying!
>
> The output of zttest is misleading, since it is just relying on the kernel
> time of day clock for measuring. Because of this, the "jiffies" version will
> appear to show more consistent results, and the RTC version will be a little
> more variable. But that is not because the RTC version of ztdummy is less
> accurate. On the contrary, it is more accurate, on average (8000 calls
> out of every 8192 per second). It is the reference for the calculations
> that is less accurate.
>
> I'm glad that your post mentioned bug number 5971, as I hadn't been aware
> of that one until now. I think the patch in that bug is seriously flawed,
> and have just posted on it to that effect.
>
>   
>> [... snip results ...]
>>     
>
>   
>> HW:
>> Tyan Tomcat K8E, Athlon64 3000+, 1GB RAM, 3ware 8006, 2x Maxtor HDD
>>
>> SW:
>> Ubuntu 5.10, linux-2.6.15, zaptel from 1.2 branch
>>
>> Any idea what can be wrong?
>>     
>
> Nothing! Please ignore the figures, and use ztdummy with USE_RTC without
> the patch from 5971. Then just describe any operational effect you might
> be seeing, if any.
>
>   
>> Thanks in advance,
>> 	Tamas
>>     
>
> Cheers
> Tony
>
>