A "useful" application of a leap second for POSIX and Windows systems is
something I believe the General Timestamp API handles pretty well.
There are some slides about halfway in to
http://www.cacr.caltech.edu/futureofutc/aas223/presentations/2-3-NetworkTimeInfrastructure.pptx.pdf
that talk about
Marco Marongiu writes:
> On 12/01/15 06:10, William Unruh wrote:
> > I also admit I do not know how windows impliments leap
> > seconds.
>
> I don't have a reference, but I remember that at the time of the latest
> leap second I read that Windows will half the clock speed at 23:59:59 so
> that it
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:58 AM, Danny Mayer wrote:
> None of these are valid nor are they for you to use.
Take down the mailing list/Usenet gateway. Or make it smarter. I would vote
for the former.
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
On 1/12/2015 6:29 AM, Mike Cook wrote:
Not true. That would violate POSIX. There is no "properly implements",
or "right thing".
Perhaps you're unaware that POSIX isn't the One True Operating System
specification.
"Properly implements" means it follows the well defined, 40 year old normative
s
On 12/01/15 16:10, Marco Marongiu wrote:
If so, does it also mean that it would do the same when you disable the
kernel discipline by adding a disable kernel in ntp.conf?
(Or by trying to disable stepping. A lot of people seem to run systems
that are incompatible with the use of the kernel di
William Unruh wrote:
> So, there are a bunch of proposals. stop the clock a la Mills
> (delivering times that always increase but very very slowly during that
> second).
> double the rate of the clock during the two seconds around the leap.
> Have the clock run in TAI and put the leapsecond hand
On 12/01/2015 14:31, Brian Inglis wrote:
On 2015-01-12 00:32, Harlan Stenn wrote:
Brian Inglis writes:
Current OpenSSL version is 1.0.1k since maintenance improved
after Heartbleed encouraged LF/CII and others to fund OpenSSL.
Which OpenSSL version is currently required?
Any way that support
On 01/12/2015 04:55 PM, William Unruh wrote:
> So, there are a bunch of proposals.
> 1. stop the clock a la Mills (delivering times that always increase
>but very very slowly during that second).
> 2. double the rate of the clock during the two seconds around the
>leap. Have the clock run
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Mike Cook wrote:
> > Why do folks mention leap seconds on this list?
> part of the NTP protocol deals with the scheduling insertion/deletion of
> leap seconds.
>
I should have phrased that differently. Or just let it go.
>
> > Why do people point to leap-s
On 2015-01-12, Michael Moroney wrote:
> Rob writes:
>
>>Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> If I have a system synchronized with a public NTP source, which is
>>> synchronized with an atomic clock that provides leap second info, and
>>> I am watching carefully, what will happen when the leap second hits
On 12/01/15 11:48, Martin Burnicki wrote:
> Fortunately Dave Hart had some time to have a closer look at this, and
> fix it for 4.2.6, so unless something has been broken again in the mean
> time it should be fixed in 4.2.6 and later, and should work correctly.
Let me understand: you mean that in
Michael Moroney wrote:
> Rob writes:
>
>>Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> If I have a system synchronized with a public NTP source, which is
>>> synchronized with an atomic clock that provides leap second info, and
>>> I am watching carefully, what will happen when the leap second hits? Will
>>> my
Martin Burnicki wrote:
> Rob schrieb:
>> Mike S wrote:
>>> On 1/11/2015 7:16 PM, William Unruh wrote:
If that public source is responsible it will pass on to your
system the fact that there is a leapsecond, and your system will "stop"
for a second at the last second of June.
>>>
>>
On 1/12/2015 3:24 AM, Guy wrote:
> Brian Inglis wrote:
>
On 2015-01-10 11:13, Martin Burnicki wrote:
> Please note that beside the NTP binaries you also need the
> openssl DLL in the version against which the binaries have been
> built, otherwise ntpd fails to start.
>
Rob writes:
>Michael Moroney wrote:
>> If I have a system synchronized with a public NTP source, which is
>> synchronized with an atomic clock that provides leap second info, and
>> I am watching carefully, what will happen when the leap second hits? Will
>> my system suddenly find its clock o
On 2015-01-12 00:32, Harlan Stenn wrote:
Brian Inglis writes:
Current OpenSSL version is 1.0.1k since maintenance improved
after Heartbleed encouraged LF/CII and others to fund OpenSSL.
Which OpenSSL version is currently required?
Any way that support of updated OpenSSL versions by ntpd could
Paul wrote:
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 11:34 PM, brian utterback <
brian.utterb...@oracle.com> wrote:
On 1/11/2015 10:40 PM, William Unruh wrote:
Well, actually as I understand it, ntpd does stop the cclock for that
second
That is not the case. That is the behavior that the kernel reference
co
Rob schrieb:
Mike S wrote:
On 1/11/2015 7:16 PM, William Unruh wrote:
If that public source is responsible it will pass on to your
system the fact that there is a leapsecond, and your system will "stop"
for a second at the last second of June.
A system which properly implements leap seconds
Mike S wrote:
On 1/11/2015 7:16 PM, William Unruh wrote:
If that public source is responsible it will pass on to your
system the fact that there is a leapsecond, and your system will "stop"
for a second at the last second of June.
A system which properly implements leap seconds will do no such
>>
>> Not true. That would violate POSIX. There is no "properly implements",
>> or "right thing".
>
> Perhaps you're unaware that POSIX isn't the One True Operating System
> specification.
>
> "Properly implements" means it follows the well defined, 40 year old
> normative specification for ha
Marco Marongiu wrote:
On 12/01/15 06:10, William Unruh wrote:
I also admit I do not know how windows impliments leap
seconds.
The Windows operating system by itself is not aware of any leap seconds,
as far as I know.
Due to this fact, I opened a bugzilla issue back in 2005
https://bugs.ntp.
On 1/11/2015 11:32 PM, brian utterback wrote:
On 1/11/2015 9:44 PM, Mike S wrote:
On 1/11/2015 7:16 PM, William Unruh wrote:
If that public source is responsible it will pass on to your
system the fact that there is a leapsecond, and your system will "stop"
for a second at the last second of J
brian utterback wrote:
>
> On 1/11/2015 4:56 PM, Rob wrote:
>> Michael Moroney wrote:
>>> If I have a system synchronized with a public NTP source, which is
>>> synchronized with an atomic clock that provides leap second info, and
>>> I am watching carefully, what will happen when the leap secon
Mike S wrote:
> On 1/11/2015 7:16 PM, William Unruh wrote:
>> If that public source is responsible it will pass on to your
>> system the fact that there is a leapsecond, and your system will "stop"
>> for a second at the last second of June.
>
> A system which properly implements leap seconds will
On 11/01/2015 21:00, trackeroft...@gmail.com wrote:
[]
To stop your inklings I've just wanted to integrate ntp client with my own
software into common installer.
Now I'm not convinced it was good idea, likely not. A lot of ntp's versions
could make me more work every time and thus it doesn't he
On 12/01/15 06:10, William Unruh wrote:
> I also admit I do not know how windows impliments leap
> seconds.
I don't have a reference, but I remember that at the time of the latest
leap second I read that Windows will half the clock speed at 23:59:59 so
that it reaches 00:00:00 at the right time.
26 matches
Mail list logo
