> A stand alone machine is going to have its clock drift by more than a > few seconds over 10 years. Leap seconds are in the noise compared >
Yes, but the applications running on a standalone machine will use the same API's as any other POSIX machine. Therefore, unless you want two seperate API's, one for standalone machines and one for network-connected machines, and then also require that applications written for one are incompatible with applications written for the other, then it is best to meet both requirements. So I don't believe this has anything to do with whether or not a standalone machine drifts due to not having a caesium clock on board. -paul On Sat, 2011-02-19 at 17:13 -0500, Tim Shepard wrote: > > > > > this is why leap seconds announced ten years in advanced > > are important: they allow for a stand-alone machine, albeit > > one that only needs to have it's software upgraded once in > > ten years. > > > A stand alone machine is going to have its clock drift by more than a > few seconds over 10 years. Leap seconds are in the noise compared > to errors due to accumulated drift of standalone machines. > > If it has a way of receiving a time signal to stay synchronized, then > it ought to have a way of receiving info about the leap seconds (if > they even matter). > > -Tim Shepard > s...@alum.mit.edu > _______________________________________________ > LEAPSECS mailing list > LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com > http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs > _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com http://six.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
