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
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
Rob schrieb:
Mike S mi...@flatsurface.com 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
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 handling leap
Mike S mi...@flatsurface.com 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
brian utterback brian.utterb...@oracle.com wrote:
On 1/11/2015 4:56 PM, Rob wrote:
Michael Moroney moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com 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
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
Rob nom...@example.com writes:
Michael Moroney moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com 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 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 in
Michael Moroney moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com wrote:
Rob nom...@example.com writes:
Michael Moroney moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com 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
Martin Burnicki martin.burni...@meinberg.de wrote:
Rob schrieb:
Mike S mi...@flatsurface.com 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
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
On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 12:46 AM, Mike Cook mike.c...@orange.fr 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
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 reaches
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca 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
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
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
NIST updated ftp://time.nist.gov/pub/leap-seconds.list linked to
leap-seconds.3629404800
On 2015-01-05 07:29, Marco Marongiu wrote:
Get ready, fellows. It's coming again.
-- bronto
Forwarded Message
Subject: Bulletin C number 49
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2015 14:25:49 +0100
From:
Why do folks mention leap seconds on this list?
Why do people point to leap-seconds.NTPtimestamp instead of just
leap-seconds.list?
My five line leap second file with comments and one extra line for
(completely unnecessary) context.
#$ 3629404800
#@ 3660249600
3550089600 35 #
Michael Moroney moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com 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
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 thing.
It will
On 2015-01-11, Michael Moroney moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com 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
On 2015-01-12, Mike S mi...@flatsurface.com 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
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 June.
A system which properly implements leap
On 1/11/2015 10:40 PM, William Unruh wrote:
On 2015-01-12, Mike S mi...@flatsurface.com 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
On 1/11/2015 4:56 PM, Rob wrote:
Michael Moroney moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com 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
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 off by 1 second and slowly drift to
the accurate
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
code
On 2015-01-12, brian utterback brian.utterb...@oracle.com wrote:
On 1/11/2015 10:40 PM, William Unruh wrote:
On 2015-01-12, Mike S mi...@flatsurface.com 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
101 - 130 of 130 matches
Mail list logo
