On Sat, 19 May 2007 08:42:28 +1000, Shane wrote: >On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 18:19 -0400, Thompson, Steve wrote: > >Corporate LAN runs off to a timesource every so often - all the users >ever see is a consistent (correct) time value. >Mainframe (even with ETR) wanders around always "off-time" - unless it >also synchs to a (different) timesource. Given the questions we see here >on the list, I wonder if the majority of ETRs aren't synched to an >atomic source at all, but set locally. > Everything "runs off to a timesource every so often". Even the "atomic source" is a weighted average of several atomic clocks widely separated geographically. I think that's what the "coordinated" in UTC means. It's dismaying that for mainframes the "timesource" is too often the operator's wristwatch.
>It's about time IBM allowed the clock correction to be driven by an >"accepted" source. > I believe that's what the sysplex timer does. In my experience, it does it extremely well. I don't know whether dialup or shortwave to WWV is counted as an "accepted source". Alas, the OP states he hasn't a Sysplex Timer. > ... Maybe the next step will be to just be a (local) >client like everyone else. >It's just a server after all ... > But what happens to revenues for the Sysplex Timer division? Another perception is that time from TCP/IP is free. The source code is available at no charge. Most non-mainframe systems are sold with it preloaded. I perceive the administrative overhead as less than for a sysplex timer. As long as the mainframes remain egregious in not using TCP/IP as a timesource, there's a selling point for the competition. -- gil ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
