The linux kernel bug aparently was found and fixed:
related thread:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/2/276
bug analysis:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/2/373
fix:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/1/2/415
Antonio M. Moreiras.
Bill Unruh escreveu:
> On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Danny Mayer wrote:
>
>> Unruh wrote:
>>>
Not 3 or 4 years, likely by June or December 2010.
Rich Schmidt
> Unfortunately we will have to wait 3 or 4 years for the next test.
>
> >Cheers,
> >David
___
questions mailing list
questions@lists.ntp.org
https://lists.ntp.org/mailman/listinfo/question
On Sat, 3 Jan 2009, Danny Mayer wrote:
> Unruh wrote:
>> George R. Kasica writes:
>>
>>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:31:34 +0100, Rob van der Putten
>>> wrote:
>>
Hi there
Steve Kostecke wrote:
> All my Linux systems had a fine time. None of them locked up / crashed /
>>>
Unruh wrote:
> George R. Kasica writes:
>
>> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:31:34 +0100, Rob van der Putten
>> wrote:
>
>>> Hi there
>>>
>>>
>>> Steve Kostecke wrote:
>>>
All my Linux systems had a fine time. None of them locked up / crashed /
rebooted / etc.
The kernels involved in
George R. Kasica writes:
>On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:31:34 +0100, Rob van der Putten
>wrote:
>>Hi there
>>
>>
>>Steve Kostecke wrote:
>>
>>> All my Linux systems had a fine time. None of them locked up / crashed /
>>> rebooted / etc.
>>>
>>> The kernels involved included:
>>>
>>> 2.6.24-etchnhal
On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:31:34 +0100, Rob van der Putten
wrote:
>Hi there
>
>
>Steve Kostecke wrote:
>
>> All my Linux systems had a fine time. None of them locked up / crashed /
>> rebooted / etc.
>>
>> The kernels involved included:
>>
>> 2.6.24-etchnhalf.1-amd64
>> 2.6.18-5-486
>> 2.6.16-2-48
Hi there
Steve Kostecke wrote:
> All my Linux systems had a fine time. None of them locked up / crashed /
> rebooted / etc.
>
> The kernels involved included:
>
> 2.6.24-etchnhalf.1-amd64
> 2.6.18-5-486
> 2.6.16-2-486
> 2.6.18-5-k7
> 2.6.18-4-powerpc
> 2.4.16-k7
What about the hardware (Inte
On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 01:07:35 -0800 (PST), francesco.messi...@gmail.com
wrote:
>On 2 Gen, 06:47, Steve Kostecke wrote:
>> On 2009-01-01, Laws, Peter C. wrote:
>>
>> > I enjoyed my extra second, how about you?
>>
>> All my Linux systems had a fine time. None of them locked up / crashed /
>> reboote
On 2 Gen, 06:47, Steve Kostecke wrote:
> On 2009-01-01, Laws, Peter C. wrote:
>
> > I enjoyed my extra second, how about you?
>
> All my Linux systems had a fine time. None of them locked up / crashed /
> rebooted / etc.
>
Same here,
in the server farm I work for there're about one hundred linux
On 2009-01-01, Laws, Peter C. wrote:
> I enjoyed my extra second, how about you?
All my Linux systems had a fine time. None of them locked up / crashed /
rebooted / etc.
The kernels involved included:
2.6.24-etchnhalf.1-amd64
2.6.18-5-486
2.6.16-2-486
2.6.18-5-k7
2.6.18-4-powerpc
2.4.16-k7
-
Adam Myrow writes:
>FWIW, my computer running Slackware Linux 12.2 had no trouble with the
>leap second. I have ntpd using us.pool.ntp.org. Slackware 12.2 runs
>Linux 2.6.27.7, which seems to be a lot better in terms of the drift
>rate than older kernels in the 2.6 series. When the leap second
Unruh wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
>
> writes:
>
>> Unruh wrote:
>> []
>>> Apparently a number of Linux machines completely locked up at the
>>> leap second. Problems in the kernel ntp.c code apparently.
>
>> Oh, that's interesting. Do you have any specific references? I
>> haven't looked at th
"David J Taylor"
writes:
>Unruh wrote:
>[]
>> Apparently a number of Linux machines completely locked up at the leap
>> second. Problems in the kernel ntp.c code apparently.
>Oh, that's interesting. Do you have any specific references? I haven't
>looked at the source code, but I would have t
FWIW, my computer running Slackware Linux 12.2 had no trouble with the
leap second. I have ntpd using us.pool.ntp.org. Slackware 12.2 runs
Linux 2.6.27.7, which seems to be a lot better in terms of the drift
rate than older kernels in the 2.6 series. When the leap second
happened, the following
Once upon a time, Unruh said:
>Apparently a number of Linux machines completely locked up at the leap
>second. Problems in the kernel ntp.c code apparently.
I had one Red Hat Enterprise Linux 4 box lock up. However, I have a
half dozen other boxes running the exact same software set (kernel and
>Apparently a number of Linux machines completely locked up at the leap
>second. Problems in the kernel ntp.c code apparently.
2 of mine locked up. They were running 2.6.25 and 2.6.26
1 worked. It was running 2.6.23.
Does anybody have any details on the bug or it's fix?
--
These are my opini
Hi there
Unruh wrote:
> Apparently a number of Linux machines completely locked up at the leap
> second. Problems in the kernel ntp.c code apparently.
One of mine did;
I have two Debian Lenny boxes. Kernel 2.6.26-1-486 on a AMD Athlon, and
2.6.26-1-686 on Core 2 Quad. Both are based on Linux 2
Unruh wrote:
[]
> Apparently a number of Linux machines completely locked up at the leap
> second. Problems in the kernel ntp.c code apparently.
Oh, that's interesting. Do you have any specific references? I haven't
looked at the source code, but I would have thought that ntp.c sounded
like a
"David J Taylor"
writes:
>Laws, Peter C. wrote:
>> I enjoyed my extra second, how about you?
>>
>> I was amused that WWV announced that it was *going to* happen in the
>> 4th minute ... after the insertion. :-)
>Well, thankfully it was a complete non-event here:
> http://www.satsignal.eu/ntp
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 07:43:13 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote:
>Laws, Peter C. wrote:
>> I enjoyed my extra second, how about you?
>>
>> I was amused that WWV announced that it was *going to* happen in the
>> 4th minute ... after the insertion. :-)
>
>Well, thankfully it was a complete non-event here
On Thu, 1 Jan 2009 00:06:04 GMT, Laws, Peter C. wrote:
> I enjoyed my extra second, how about you?
>
> I was amused that WWV announced that it was *going to* happen in the 4th
> minute ... after the insertion. :-)
>
Here are clockstats log around the (non-)event.
54831 86388.033 127.127.26.0 scpi
Laws, Peter C. wrote:
> I enjoyed my extra second, how about you?
>
> I was amused that WWV announced that it was *going to* happen in the
> 4th minute ... after the insertion. :-)
Well, thankfully it was a complete non-event here:
http://www.satsignal.eu/ntp/ntp-events.htm#2008-12-31
My than
I enjoyed my extra second, how about you?
I was amused that WWV announced that it was *going to* happen in the 4th minute
... after the insertion. :-)
--
Peter Laws / N5UWY
National Weather Center / Network Operations Center / Remote
University of Oklahoma Information Technology
pl...@ou.edu
_
23 matches
Mail list logo
