In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
M. Warner Losh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: James Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: : M. Warner Losh wrote:
: : In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: : James Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: : :
No. The article specifically says that after it the system time gets
to ,600, it is decremented by one and there is specific code in the
code that returns the system time to applications that makes it stand
still. The second isn't *NOT* repeated. Repeat: The second is *NOT*
repeated in
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tim Shepard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: But there's a difference between NTP timestamps, and the details of
: the implementation of a system which uses NTP for synchronization.
Ah, I was getting the two confused and didn't quite realize it until
your
So internally, once we hit the leap second time, we step backwards.
Lovely waxing crescent moon last night. I could see it out of the
north facing windows of our family room. It might be simpler in some
sense to pretend that the moon (and the sun for that matter) always
rises due east and set
Warner Losh wrote:
From: James Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [LEAPSECS]Comparing Time Scales
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2006 15:37:40 -0800
Thanks, guys, for your feedback. Here's another iteration.
The numbering of NTP seconds in the vicinity of a leap second seems to
differ from one
Here's another iteration on my paper. I corrected several of the dates
in the table from my birthday (-12-23) to the end of the year
(-12-31). (Was that one of those Freudian slips?)
I also tried to close up the columns of the table a little, hoping to
make room to add another column
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
James Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: Thanks, guys, for your feedback. Here's another iteration.
:
: The numbering of NTP seconds in the vicinity of a leap second seems to
: differ from one document to another. Here I follow the NTP (version 3)
:
In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
James Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: M. Warner Losh wrote:
: In message: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
: James Maynard [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
: : Thanks, guys, for your feedback. Here's another iteration.
: :
: : The numbering of NTP seconds
(Oops, I forgot to attach the attachment!)
Thank you, Warner, for your thoughtful reply enumerating the reasons
that you are in camp #2. It caused me to research the matter further,
so that I could understand your point of view.
I purchased a copy of the IEEE 1588 standard and began to study
Thanks, Steve. I'll incorporate your comments in my next draft of this
memo to self. (I also note that I didn't correctly incorporate the
examples in Table B.2 of Annex B of IEEE 1588.)
--
James Maynard
Salem, Oregon, USA
James Maynard wrote:
Thanks, Steve. I'll incorporate your comments in my next draft of this
memo to self. (I also note that I didn't correctly incorporate the
examples in Table B.2 of Annex B of IEEE 1588.)
And here's the revised paper. Have I got it right yet?
--
James Maynard
Salem,
11 matches
Mail list logo
