On Wed 2015-03-04T08:54:00 -0500, Joseph Gwinn hath writ: > >> On Thu, 26 Feb 2015 15:09:01 +0100, Martin Burnicki wrote: > > I think I'll give it a try soon. I'd expect that a negative leap > > second might work if an appropriate announcement is received from a > > refclock or upstream NTP server, but it will be interesting to find > > out if this works with a NIST-style leap second file where the TAI > > offset decreases at a given date. > > Hell - lots of code can't handle a positive leap second, so what hope > is there?
There's a lot of hope for negative leap seconds to be inconsequential to a lot of code. An overloaded operating system which is timesharing may suspend a process for a long time, so when that process wakes up it may find that it has missed a second. A virtual machine running on a cloud server farm in Oregon may be saved to disk, shipped across the continent to North Carolina, and restarted over a second later -- or kept on disk and replicated and restarted even later, multiple times. What happens with a negative leap second is a lot like what happens to non-real-time processes and machines as a routine part of operation. -- Steve Allen <s...@ucolick.org> WGS-84 (GPS) UCO/Lick Observatory--ISB Natural Sciences II, Room 165 Lat +36.99855 1156 High Street Voice: +1 831 459 3046 Lng -122.06015 Santa Cruz, CA 95064 http://www.ucolick.org/~sla/ Hgt +250 m _______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs