A common configuration for FSMLabs TimeKeeper customers is to cross-couple time sources in New Jersey and New York City or London and Slough or Chicago and Aurora or Singapore and Sidney- any two trading locations that are connected with high quality network. Sometimes the network connection does not even have to be that great. TimeKeeper will cross-check time sources, complain when things look wrong, and failover when needed. Multiple time sources also produces a timestamp provenance. Trading applications will have a record showing that the timestamps they produce were in agreement with two or more independent sources. A number of firms scale this basic design to multiple sites: increasing the depth of fault-tolerance and the strength of the provenance. Cross-coupling time feeds also provides early warning on a number of network problems. Several customers saw TimeKeeper warnings about secondary sync and found on investigation that their network providers were changing equipment or rerouting without notice.
My opinion has always been that the Linux-RT project was based on an unfixable engineering error.
A few words on the status and the future of RT:
The situation since last years RTLWS (https://lwn.net/Articles/572740/)
has not improved at all, it's worse than before.
While shortly after RTLWS quite some people promised to whip up proper
funding, nothing has materialized and my personal situation is worse
I'm really tired of all the politics involved, the blantant lies and
the marketing bullshit which I have to bear. I learned a few month ago
that a certain kernel vendor invented most of RT anyway and is the
expert in this field, so the customers dont have to worry about my
Just for the record: The initial preempt-RT technology was brought to
you mostly by Ingo Molnar, Steven Rostedt, Paul Mckenney, Peter
Zijlstra and myself with lots of input from Doug Niehaus, who
researched full in kernel preemption already in the 1990s. The
technology rewrite around 3.0-rt was done by me with help from Peter
and Steven, and that's what preempt-RT today is based on.
Sure, people can believe whatever marketing bullshit they want, but
that doesn't make the truth go away. And the truth is, that those who
claim expertise are just a lying bunch of leeches.
What really set me off was the recent blunt question, when I'm going
to quit. What does this mean? Is someone out there just waiting that I
step down as preempt-RT maintainer, so some corporate entity can step
up as the saviour of the Linux RT world? So instead of merily leeching
someone seeks active control over the project. Nice try.