> On May 31, 2015, at 1:55 PM, Daniel R. Tobias <d...@tobias.name> wrote: > > On 31 May 2015 at 19:33, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> Most likely, at some random time after the leapsecond, your clock >> steps a second. > > ...which is basically how most computers deal with time > synchronization, excepting the minority that actually attempt > continuous high precision and accuracy; the computer's clock, not all > that accurate a timepiece, drifts off from external standards within > the period (hours, days, weeks) between synchronizations, and has to > step a few seconds one way or the other to catch up (possibly > smoothed out to prevent discontinuities that harm processes in > progress); the leap second, if any, is lost in the noise.
This is precisely the attitude that prevents leap seconds from being implemented properly. “It’s just a second” and “we’ve never cared, so why should we start” are lame cop-outs. And most systems I’ve used certainly are synchronized via NTP. All macs, all my servers, etc all maintain a reasonably coherent time scale. Failure to do this, btw, will lead many of the synchronization algorithms and such to have false timeouts, or worse. Some are resilient in the face of these weird steps. Others less so. Then again, my data is skewed, since I never use Windows. Warner
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ LEAPSECS mailing list LEAPSECS@leapsecond.com https://pairlist6.pair.net/mailman/listinfo/leapsecs
