Can some clarify if the following ptp implementation topology works:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Version to be used: ptpd version 2.3.0
Mode: Hybrid mode
Topology details: I want to setup one Linux server to run ptpd-2.3.0 as a slave daemon in one interface (say eth0) to sync time from Grand Master(say Symmetricom GPS appliance). On the same server I want to run ptpd as a master daemon in hybrid mode (using another interface, say eth3) to send time packets to other servers where ptp slave running in hybrid mode.
Basically, I want to run ptpd as a pseudo boundary clock. Is that configuration supported ?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Yes, this is supported, using two separate ptpd instances. Both will need to use separate lock files so that they can run in parallel, and to avoid the possibility of two processes finghting for clock control, the "north side" (slave for Symmetricom) should be running in slave-only mode, and the "south side" towards other slaves, should be running master-only.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Lock file is a file which ptpd locks for writing, holding the PID of the ptpd process. This is how it detects multiple instances running. By default, only one instance is allowed because ptpd always tries to use the default lock file /var/run/ptpd2.lock. Try running two ptpd processes and see what happens. So you can run one ptpd process as you normally would, and for the second process you need to specify a different lock file than /var/run/ptpd2.lock.
I think you would have already found the answer if you tried finding out yourself, asking us twice will not speed anything up. I would suggest man ptpd2, ptpd2 --help, ptpd2 -H, man ptpd2.conf, it's all in there, all you need to do is look for it. Run ptpd2 with no parameters and you'll see the basic help, lock file setting is up there near the top.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
-I was confused as I see many times I can not start the ptpd as it shows error
"critical: failed to lock /var/run/kernel_clock resource temporarily unavailable"
-I checked that there are no /var/run/ptp file or /var/lock/subsys/ptp files.
- After a while (after some time) I am able to start ptpd again. This behavior is still unexplained and confused with lock file mentioned by you.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
OS: RedHat Version: 5.8
currently, We are trying to run ptpd 2.3 as per the topology I mentioned.
But the sometimes it is successful to run and creates /var/run/kernel_clock (which essestially has the pid of the ptp).
If I kill it and clean up all files (/var/run/ptppid + /var/lock/subsys/ptppid) and try starting up, it says -->
critical: failed to lock /var/run/kernel_clock resource temporarily unavailable
.
.
Sometimes it is able to startup and sometime it is not.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Can some clarify if the following ptp implementation topology works:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Version to be used: ptpd version 2.3.0
Mode: Hybrid mode
Topology details: I want to setup one Linux server to run ptpd-2.3.0 as a slave daemon in one interface (say eth0) to sync time from Grand Master(say Symmetricom GPS appliance). On the same server I want to run ptpd as a master daemon in hybrid mode (using another interface, say eth3) to send time packets to other servers where ptp slave running in hybrid mode.
Basically, I want to run ptpd as a pseudo boundary clock. Is that configuration supported ?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thanks
Yes, this is supported, using two separate ptpd instances. Both will need to use separate lock files so that they can run in parallel, and to avoid the possibility of two processes finghting for clock control, the "north side" (slave for Symmetricom) should be running in slave-only mode, and the "south side" towards other slaves, should be running master-only.
What did you mean by separate lock file? How do I do that?
can someone please help me
Lock file is a file which ptpd locks for writing, holding the PID of the ptpd process. This is how it detects multiple instances running. By default, only one instance is allowed because ptpd always tries to use the default lock file /var/run/ptpd2.lock. Try running two ptpd processes and see what happens. So you can run one ptpd process as you normally would, and for the second process you need to specify a different lock file than /var/run/ptpd2.lock.
I think you would have already found the answer if you tried finding out yourself, asking us twice will not speed anything up. I would suggest man ptpd2, ptpd2 --help, ptpd2 -H, man ptpd2.conf, it's all in there, all you need to do is look for it. Run ptpd2 with no parameters and you'll see the basic help, lock file setting is up there near the top.
-I was confused as I see many times I can not start the ptpd as it shows error
"critical: failed to lock /var/run/kernel_clock resource temporarily unavailable"
-I checked that there are no /var/run/ptp file or /var/lock/subsys/ptp files.
- After a while (after some time) I am able to start ptpd again. This behavior is still unexplained and confused with lock file mentioned by you.
What operating system are you using and at what version, what kernel version, and what's your ptpd config?
OS: RedHat Version: 5.8
currently, We are trying to run ptpd 2.3 as per the topology I mentioned.
But the sometimes it is successful to run and creates /var/run/kernel_clock (which essestially has the pid of the ptp).
If I kill it and clean up all files (/var/run/ptppid + /var/lock/subsys/ptppid) and try starting up, it says -->
critical: failed to lock /var/run/kernel_clock resource temporarily unavailable
.
.
Sometimes it is able to startup and sometime it is not.