Re: [ntp:questions] leap second warning bits in practice
On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:33:31AM +0200, Marco Marongiu wrote: On 12/05/15 11:28, Marco Marongiu wrote: Hi there In http://doc.ntp.org/4.2.6p5/ntpd.html#leap I read: If the leap is in the future less than 28 days, the leap warning bits are set. What are the practical consequences of the warning bits being set? Will they cause the leap second to be armed in the kernel eventually? What if the kernel discipline is disabled? To be a bit clearer, further down it says When a majority of the survivors show warning, a leap is programmed at the end of the current month. What does that programmed stand for...? I think it means setting of the leap status that's reported in NTP packets and if the kernel discipline is enabled it also sets the kernel leap status bits. -- Miroslav Lichvar ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] leap second warning bits in practice
On 13/05/15 13:23, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: I'm not sure what exactly are you asking here. Do you see in your testing or the source code something different from what is described in the document? No, I am trying to understand if what I understand* from the documentation is correct. * sorry for the repetition ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] leap second warning bits in practice
On 13/05/15 11:03, Miroslav Lichvar wrote: On Tue, May 12, 2015 at 11:33:31AM +0200, Marco Marongiu wrote: On 12/05/15 11:28, Marco Marongiu wrote: Hi there In http://doc.ntp.org/4.2.6p5/ntpd.html#leap I read: If the leap is in the future less than 28 days, the leap warning bits are set. What are the practical consequences of the warning bits being set? Will they cause the leap second to be armed in the kernel eventually? What if the kernel discipline is disabled? To be a bit clearer, further down it says When a majority of the survivors show warning, a leap is programmed at the end of the current month. What does that programmed stand for...? I think it means setting of the leap status that's reported in NTP packets and if the kernel discipline is enabled it also sets the kernel leap status bits. Thanks for your answer Miroslav I don't think it's the case. In the linked doc, the sentence right after the quoted one says: If in the future less than 23 hours, the kernel is armed to insert one second at the end of the current day I understand that the leap second is not armed in the kernel if only the warning is set. Rather, it seems that the warning is used by a client to understand if it should believe its upstreams when they claim there will be a leap second by this month. I think my interpretation is correct but I'd really appreciate if someone could either confirm or clarify, so that I/we know exactly what to expect. Thanks -- bronto ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] leap second warning bits in practice
On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 11:44:37AM +0200, Marco Marongiu wrote: I understand that the leap second is not armed in the kernel if only the warning is set. Rather, it seems that the warning is used by a client to understand if it should believe its upstreams when they claim there will be a leap second by this month. I think my interpretation is correct but I'd really appreciate if someone could either confirm or clarify, so that I/we know exactly what to expect. I'm not sure what exactly are you asking here. Do you see in your testing or the source code something different from what is described in the document? -- Miroslav Lichvar ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
[ntp:questions] leap second warning bits in practice
Hi there In http://doc.ntp.org/4.2.6p5/ntpd.html#leap I read: If the leap is in the future less than 28 days, the leap warning bits are set. What are the practical consequences of the warning bits being set? Will they cause the leap second to be armed in the kernel eventually? What if the kernel discipline is disabled? Thanks, ciao -- bronto ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
Re: [ntp:questions] leap second warning bits in practice
On 12/05/15 11:28, Marco Marongiu wrote: Hi there In http://doc.ntp.org/4.2.6p5/ntpd.html#leap I read: If the leap is in the future less than 28 days, the leap warning bits are set. What are the practical consequences of the warning bits being set? Will they cause the leap second to be armed in the kernel eventually? What if the kernel discipline is disabled? To be a bit clearer, further down it says When a majority of the survivors show warning, a leap is programmed at the end of the current month. What does that programmed stand for...? Ciao -- bronto ___ questions mailing list questions@lists.ntp.org http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
