Note that this
is an instance of ntpd syncing against a single stratum 1 server.
Other configurations may have behaved differently.
Thank you for bringing this information to freshen up my understanding
of the leap second and possible implications.
This also reinvigorated my interest
Interestingly enough, logging reports 1 big jump on my boxes about 1.5
hours after midnight. It's curious that there's only a report of a ~1s
jump, then skew correction. Times are in UTC. I'm using constraints
from google and pool.ntp.org as the server on 5.7/amd64.
Jul 1 01:36:01 x
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 02:12:48PM +, li...@ggp2.com wrote:
Interestingly enough, logging reports 1 big jump on my boxes about 1.5
Nah, that's not a jump. The message means: starting slowing
down/speeding up the clock to compensate. It takes a while for the
adjustment to be done. Once the
On 2015-06-27, Christian Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de wrote:
After the leap second, your OpenBSD system's time will be off by,
well, one second. Gasp, shock. Let's say you synchronize your
clock with ntpd against a server that does have the correct time.
At the next poll, i.e. within about
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:28:42AM -0400, Peter Pauly wrote:
Would you mind sharing your ntpd.conf file?
ntpd.conf:
servers pool.ntp.org
constraints from https://www.google.com;
rc.conf.local:
ntpd_flags=
I'm wondering if there's a discrepancy between ntpd -d and logging?
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 02:47:48PM +, li...@ggp2.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 10:28:42AM -0400, Peter Pauly wrote:
Would you mind sharing your ntpd.conf file?
ntpd.conf:
servers pool.ntp.org
constraints from https://www.google.com;
rc.conf.local:
ntpd_flags=
I'm
On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 04:26:24PM +0200, Otto Moerbeek wrote:
Nah, that's not a jump. The message means: starting slowing
down/speeding up the clock to compensate. It takes a while for the
adjustment to be done. Once the clock gets closer to the time computed
from the references, the needed
As you may have heard, a leap second will be upon us at 23:59:60
UTC on June 30.
The sky will fall, civilization will end, and dinosaurs will roam
the earth again. Well, maybe not.
Neither the OpenBSD kernel nor OpenNTPD handle leap seconds in any
way. So what will happen?
After the leap
Mikolaj Kucharski:
This year we will have positive leap second[1] I've recently got asked
how OpenNTPD handles leap seconds and did anything change from 2012[2].
Nothing has changed. OpenNTPD does nothing with leap seconds.
I think the basic attitude is that (1) they're rare enough that we
Hi,
This year we will have positive leap second[1] I've recently got asked
how OpenNTPD handles leap seconds and did anything change from 2012[2].
I've looked at the source code and I don't see any changes from that
time until now that would made me think OpenNTPD handles leap seconds
seconds since the epoch. A leap second is
just another second that passes. Whether that second is called
23:59:60 or 00:00:00 is a matter for strftime().
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_time and Unix time across
midnight when a UTC leap second is inserted
That just says that POSIX
have multiple routing table support on my FreeBSD
box.
Seems to work for me. Is a starting point for being able to hack other
stuff in. I only care about leap-seconds.
I'm thinking leap-second support should come in two modes:
* Pause system time for one second, per reference ntpd.
* Smear
a portable and the native
one.
also, I'd be interested what the other changes are.
I'm thinking of in-memory state to track if we did see the leap-second
from that server, and keep it for two days, and lose the state if
someone restarts ntpd, so that we then need to rely upon normal voting
On 2012-03-04 at 19:30 +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Phil Pennock openbsd-misc-p...@spodhuis.org [2012-03-04 13:23]:
https://github.com/syscomet/openntpd
please note that it takes a bit more for a new portable release,
namely, at least tests on the major platforms.
Absolutely. Couldn't
Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote:
A brief skim of the source (4.6p1) suggests that OpenNTPd passes on
well, 4.6 is ancient. unfortunately nobody maintains the portable atm.
The problem is that OpenNTPd stopped being portable when it started
assuming that it could retrieve the
Phil Pennock openbsd-misc-p...@spodhuis.org wrote:
There's a leap-second on July 1st and I'm not seeing any equivalent
configuration for OpenNTPd to the reference implementation's leapfile
directive, to use a distributed leap-seconds file to let ntpd know of
the leapseconds epoch rollover
On 2012-03-04 at 20:36 +, Christian Weisgerber wrote:
Phil Pennock openbsd-misc-p...@spodhuis.org wrote:
There's a leap-second on July 1st and I'm not seeing any equivalent
configuration for OpenNTPd to the reference implementation's leapfile
directive, to use a distributed leap
* Phil Pennock openbsd-misc-p...@spodhuis.org [2012-03-04 21:05]:
On 2012-03-04 at 19:30 +0100, Henning Brauer wrote:
* Phil Pennock openbsd-misc-p...@spodhuis.org [2012-03-04 13:23]:
https://github.com/syscomet/openntpd
please note that it takes a bit more for a new portable release,
* Christian Weisgerber na...@mips.inka.de [2012-03-04 21:46]:
Henning Brauer lists-open...@bsws.de wrote:
A brief skim of the source (4.6p1) suggests that OpenNTPd passes on
well, 4.6 is ancient. unfortunately nobody maintains the portable atm.
The problem is that OpenNTPd stopped
* Phil Pennock openbsd-misc-p...@spodhuis.org [2012-03-02 16:32]:
A brief skim of the source (4.6p1) suggests that OpenNTPd passes on
well, 4.6 is ancient. unfortunately nobody maintains the portable atm.
that said, otoh there we no changes regarding leap seconds afterwards.
leap-second
[checked archives, FAQ, website, etc]
There's a leap-second on July 1st and I'm not seeing any equivalent
configuration for OpenNTPd to the reference implementation's leapfile
directive, to use a distributed leap-seconds file to let ntpd know of
the leapseconds epoch rollover.
A brief skim
Hello people,
I have adapted my leap second patch (which has been part of
OpenBSD's base system's rdate(8) for years) to (portable)
OpenNTPD and attached it below.
A patch against OpenBSD ntpd(8) has been sent to henning@
some time ago already.
The patch does not modify default behaviour
22 matches
Mail list logo
