Martin Burnicki <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Mark,
>Mark Newman wrote: >> Unruh - thanks for responding. You are the only one >> who did. >> >> I certainly did not mean to disparage NTP time. I >> have spec'ed that it be used on our system. Where I >> run into problems is when a leap second occurs. >> According to everything I've read when NTP signals >> the operating system that the second is occurring it >> also outputs time. It uses the POSIX standard method >> - duplicate a second (or in some cases stretch the >> last second). This causes confusion when a time >> sample is taken before the leap second and one during >> the leap second. The UTC standard (which only >> addresses ascii time representations) actually counts >> the second 0..60 rather than 0..59. >If you "normalize" the time with second 60 then you see there _is_ a >duplicate time stamp. This is because a leap second _is_ a inconsistency of >time. No there is not. Just like a leap year is not an inconsistancy of time. It is not inconsistant to add a leap second. It may be a pain for some purposes (eg if you are an astronomer), but then so areleap years, and I do not hear for a great push that we go onto say lunar time, for which each year is exactly the same. > >> At this point I am obligated to use UTC and NTP. >On most Unix-like kernels NTP just passes a leap second announcement to the >OS kernel, and the kernel handles the leap second in the way it is >implemented in the kernel. For details, please see >http://www.meinberg.de/english/info/leap-second.htm _______________________________________________ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/questions
