![](https://seccdn.libravatar.org/avatar/7946a5581e1e0b25e548f2b41c69d273.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 11:37 +0000, Dave Howorth wrote:
Philipp Thomas wrote:
I still wonder why Intel thought no one would need something like this ...
Roger Oberholtzer wrote:
Interesting read. This is why we have made our own little dongles to which we attach various devices. These time stamp (or the equivalent) things and then pass them on the ethernet to the collection systems. This way we have everything synchronized to within 1 wheel pulse (< 0.9mm) of vehicle movement.
I think this answers Philipp's puzzlement. Intel expects that measurement devices will contain enough intelligence to enable measurement collection to be asynchronous. Or at least they will be interfaced via such devices.
This is OK in our case as the devices are not consumer grade. I think intel have only addressed those types of devices. It is expected that non-standard systems with high demands will have to use non-standard interfaces. I just wish the local Ph.Bs. would cotton on to this and stop asking why we "waste money making local solutions when it seems off-the-shelf solutions must work as well". We are a big believer in COTS. But it still must work. -- Roger Oberholtzer OPQ Systems / Ramböll RST Ramböll Sverige AB Krukmakargatan 21 P.O. Box 17009 SE-104 62 Stockholm, Sweden Office: Int +46 10-615 60 20 Mobile: Int +46 70-815 1696 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse+help@opensuse.org