In a recent note, Edward E. Jaffe said: > Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2005 14:12:10 -0700 > > >What ever became of the guarantee that STCK would return unique values > >(subject to clock wrap)? > > Why do you ask, "What ever became of ..."? Nothing has changed in this area. > Sorry; obtuse rhetoric. A previous contributor, wanting a unique token found that time rounded to a 0.1 second granularity was not satisfactory, and resorted to other techniques. What became of the uniqueness was that his rounding destroyed it.
> >(Does STCKE make similar assurance?) > > RTFM. The answer is yes. > Thanks. > >(Is there any similar assurance across a sysplex?) > > Yes. That's the reason for the TOD register contents being stored as > part of STCKE. > Yet I wonder, beyond uniqueness, can there ever be any perceived violation of monotonicity? Might one processor do a STCK, then send a signal to another processor which, in turn does its STCK and sees a value (including the TOD register content) algebraically less than the one that demonstrably happend earlier? I suppose it doesn't matter much. -- gil -- StorageTek INFORMATION made POWERFUL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
