Was it advertising leap=01 before the leap ? It might be because it leaped backwards (would be strange, though : no backward leap was ever introduced in the leapfile, IIRC)
2012/7/1 AlbyVA <[email protected]>: > > > It looks like my server picked up the Leap Second, but it just counted > 19:59:59 twice. > Check it out: (NOTE: EDT -0400 Timezone). > > Sat, Jun 30 2012 19:59:59.387 > Sat, Jun 30 2012 19:59:59.894 > Sat, Jun 30 2012 19:59:59.401 > Sat, Jun 30 2012 19:59:59.907 > Sat, Jun 30 2012 20:00:00.656 > Sat, Jun 30 2012 20:00:01.170 > Sat, Jun 30 2012 20:00:01.677 > > -Alby > > > > > > On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 12:45 AM, Kim B. Sindalsen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On my two linux-boxes I've got this in my logs: >> >> Box 1: Jul 01 01:59:59 [kernel] [11613806.049909] Clock: inserting leap >> second 23:59:60 UTC >> >> Box 2: Jul 01 01:59:59 [kernel] [976439.291563] Clock: inserting leap >> second >> 23:59:60 UTC >> >> (I'm on UTC+2) >> >> That's the only thing in my logs I could find indicating that something >> happened tonight ;) >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dave Hart >> Sent: Saturday, June 30, 2012 01:40 >> To: Daniel Norton >> Cc: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [Pool] Leap Second UTC >> >> On Fri, Jun 29, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Daniel Norton <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > From http://www.ntp.org/ntpfaq/NTP-s-algo-real.htm#AEN2499 >> > >> > 5.3.4. What happens during a Leap Second? >> > >> > The theory of leap seconds in explained in Q: 2.4.. In reality there >> > are two cases to consider: >> > >> > If the operating system implements the kernel discipline described in >> > Section 5.2, ntpd will announce insertion and deletion of leap seconds >> > to the kernel. The kernel will handle the leap seconds without further >> > action necessary. >> >> Although exactly how it's handled is platform-defined. One can imagine >> simply stepping the clock, pausing the system for a second, or more subtle >> schemes that try to ensure always-increasing clock readings. I'm curious >> if >> any don't simply step the clock. >> >> > If the operating system does not implement the kernel discipline, the >> > clock will show an error of one second relative to NTP's time >> > immediate after the leap second. The situation will be handled just >> > like an unexpected change of >> > time: The operating system will continue with the wrong time for some >> > time, but eventually ntpd will step the time. Effectively this will >> > cause the correction for leap seconds to be applied too late. >> >> NAK on that FAQ. Well, assuming recent ntpd that is. I'm not sure when >> it >> changed, but modern ntpd steps the clock back if not using the kernel loop >> discipline. That FAQ hasn't been maintained in many years and is >> increasingly unhelpful. I'd like to see it updated simply to say it's out >> of date and shouldn't be relied upon. The intended replacement is the >> http://support.ntp.org collection of [t]wikis. >> >> Cheers, >> Dave Hart >> _______________________________________________ >> pool mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pool mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool > > > > _______________________________________________ > pool mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool _______________________________________________ pool mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/pool
