On Sun, 2010-12-12 at 01:20 +, Ian Batten wrote:
> >
> > This is because by-and-large software is written for the "lowest
> > common denominator".
>
> NFS (the computing glue of the nineties) and Kerberos/AD
> (the computing glue of the noughties). [...]
please understand that I am only tr
On Dec 11, 2010, at 6:36 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> ATC systems being unsynchronized means that planes crash; clearly a situation
> we want to avoid.
Presumably they do have layers on layers of error handling built in, as well as
contingent procedures - perhaps even traditional sextant navigation
>
> Which bit of "need" don't you understand ?
>
> Are you happy with the ATC servers used to land your plane being
> "within some minutes" of each other ?
There are two choices:
A. the software was written to be safe assuming precise time
syncronization AND the time was reliably and precisel
On 12/11/2010 17:18, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
In message<1292109115.24926.42.ca...@localhost>, Paul Sheer writes:
On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 22:35 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
But that does not allow us to ignore the servers which are
synchronized and which need to be synchronized to work.
I dis
>
> This is because by-and-large software is written for the "lowest
> common denominator".
I am reminded of Spinal Tap's "We're cancelled in Boston, but don't worry, it's
not a big college town". Examples of protocols that get distinctly tetchy in
the face of poor clock synch are, as has alr
In message <1292109115.24926.42.ca...@localhost>, Paul Sheer writes:
>On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 22:35 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>> But that does not allow us to ignore the servers which are
>> synchronized and which need to be synchronized to work.
>
>I disagree. It very much allows us to ignore
On Dec 11, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> So the magnitude of this "kinda works" degrades as the time synchronization
> between systems gets worse.
"Kinda works" - you could be describing UTC redefined without leap seconds :-)
Rob
___
LEAPSECS
On Sat, 2010-12-11 at 22:35 +, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
> In message <1292102703.24926.29.ca...@localhost>, Paul Sheer writes:
>
> >Apply this principle as follows: ACCEPT that there are servers
> >and desktops all over the world are MISCONFIGURED and do NOT
> >have second-accurate syncronizat
On 2010-12-11, at 22:25, Paul Sheer wrote:
> Apply this principle as follows: ACCEPT that there are servers
> and desktops all over the world are MISCONFIGURED and do NOT
> have second-accurate syncronization, and are NEVER going to
> have second-accurate syncronization.
True. If someone doesn't
In message <1292102703.24926.29.ca...@localhost>, Paul Sheer writes:
>Apply this principle as follows: ACCEPT that there are servers
>and desktops all over the world are MISCONFIGURED and do NOT
>have second-accurate syncronization, and are NEVER going to
>have second-accurate syncronization.
Ohh
On Dec 11, 2010, at 1:32 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
> That's one reason why you're seeing the push back from people on this list:
> many have tried to deploy systems where sub-second synchronization was
> required by the application and have run into many problems...
May I point out that the curren
>
> > This is orders of magnitude more error than any leap second.
>
> One problem with the "kinda works" attitude is that is a barrier to
> entry for people whose systems need to work correctly to a much higher
>
I agree: the "kinda works" attitude is indeed such a barrier.
However the "
On 12/11/2010 09:23, Paul Sheer wrote:
I'm surprised by your claim that Telcos don't do NTP, [...]
I'm sure many do.
My point is that, if one's starting premise is that most systems in the
world *require* second-accurate syncronization, this is simply untrue.
In fact most work perfectly well
On 11 Dec 2010, at 16:23, Paul Sheer wrote:
>
>> I'm surprised by your claim that Telcos don't do NTP, [...]
>
> I'm sure many do.
>
> My point is that, if one's starting premise is that most systems in the
> world *require* second-accurate syncronization, this is simply untrue.
>
> In fact m
> I'm surprised by your claim that Telcos don't do NTP, [...]
I'm sure many do.
My point is that, if one's starting premise is that most systems in the
world *require* second-accurate syncronization, this is simply untrue.
In fact most work perfectly well even when they drift by minutes,
and a
On Sat 2010-12-11T08:18:54 +, Poul-Henning Kamp hath writ:
> >I have a script that dumps the timestamps of each of a number of
> >servers where I work; this is a recent result:
Those clocks span about 10 seconds.
> Why are you not running NTP properly ?
That question is not fair without furt
On 10 Dec 2010, at 15:15, Peter Vince wrote:
> Hello Paul,
>
> I'd be interested if you have some examples of of Y2K bugs that
> were fixed before they became a problem. In my very limited
> experience, I wasn't affected by any, nor aware of them.
The Burroughs "TMS" manufacturing system s
In message <4d02faf1.18277.14639...@dan.tobias.name>, "Daniel R. Tobias" writes
:
>On 11 Dec 2010 at 0:40, Paul Sheer wrote:
>
>> At the ISP I consult for there are about 20 servers serving 60,000
>> customers. Their clocks routinely go out of sync and it doesn't affect
>> service.
>
>I have a scri
>>
>
> Then you must also pity 99.999% of the software users on the planet all of
> which are not affected by missing NTP configurations.
Really? OSX ships with a functional NTP configuration, enabled by default, as
do most Apple odds and ends (Airports, particularly). In order to have an O
19 matches
Mail list logo
