Warner Losh wrote:
|On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Hal Murray \
|wrote:
...
|>> Not being a traditionalist myself, I don't feel that there is anything \
|>> wrong
|>> with 23:59:60 as a label for a particular second.
|>
|> Unfortunately,
Hal Murray wrote:
>
> i...@bsdimp.com said:
>> Except, last I checked, NTP doesn't use this. And applications don't re-read
>> the zone file info when they are updated, so long running applications will
>> use the old data. Also, that file doesn't have then pending leap second this
>> December in
John Sauter wrote:
> I took the lack of mention of leap seconds to mean that leap seconds
> ere not a problem. The output of the NISTDC units is an astonishingly
> accurate 1 pulse per second. That feeds NTP, which handles leap
> seconds using a table. As long as the table is kept up to date,
On 2016-10-09 11:32 PM, John Sauter wrote:
On Sun, 2016-10-09 at 15:12 -0400, Brooks Harris wrote:
I took the lack of mention of leap seconds to mean that leap
seconds
ere not a problem. The output of the NISTDC units is an
astonishingly
accurate 1 pulse per second. That feeds NTP, which
On Mon, Oct 10, 2016 at 12:02 AM, Hal Murray wrote:
>
>> Meantime there is no standardized way to keep the Leap Second tables
>> automatically updated to begin with.
>
> It's being distributed with the time zone data. Hopefully, all the major
> distros/OSes will include
> Meantime there is no standardized way to keep the Leap Second tables
> automatically updated to begin with.
It's being distributed with the time zone data. Hopefully, all the major
distros/OSes will include it by the end of the year. (Don't hold your
breath.)
>From Debian jessie
On Sun, 2016-10-09 at 15:12 -0400, Brooks Harris wrote:
> > I took the lack of mention of leap seconds to mean that leap
> > seconds
> > ere not a problem. The output of the NISTDC units is an
> > astonishingly
> > accurate 1 pulse per second. That feeds NTP, which handles leap
> > seconds
Hi John,
On 2016-10-09 12:41 PM, John Sauter wrote:
On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 15:58 -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
On Fri 2016-10-07T11:48:25 -0600, Warner Losh hath writ:
Accurate, Traceable, and Verifiable Time Synchronization for
On Sat, 2016-10-08 at 15:58 -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Steve Allen wrote:
> >
> > On Fri 2016-10-07T11:48:25 -0600, Warner Losh hath writ:
> > >
> > > Accurate, Traceable, and Verifiable Time Synchronization for
> > > World
> > > Financial
On Fri 2016-10-07T11:48:25 -0600, Warner Losh hath writ:
> Accurate, Traceable, and Verifiable Time Synchronization for World
> Financial Markets
>
> http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/121/jres.121.023.pdf
>
> Market synchronization requirements today are 1s. However, in August
> 2017 they
This was just published with a friend as co-author:
Accurate, Traceable, and Verifiable Time Synchronization for World
Financial Markets
http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/jres/121/jres.121.023.pdf
Market synchronization requirements today are 1s. However, in August
2017 they become 50ms. Good
11 matches
Mail list logo