On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 22:06:16 -0500, Hal Murray wrote:
> In article <2wlgp.34776$d46.31...@newsfe07.iad>,
> Bruce Lilly writes:
>
>> o POSIX mutex for synchronized access to shared memory for updates
>> -- obviates mode 0 / mode 1 / OLDWAY
>
> I'm far from a POSIX wizard. When I google for >
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 05:17:32 +, Harlan Stenn wrote:
[referring to a proposal to somehow combine SVID shared memory and POSIX
shared memory code in a single driver]
> I think I've seen these and I still don't think it's a big deal.
Perhaps you are confused because both contain the words "shar
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 13:32:11 +, Dave Hart wrote:
> It is not clear to me the two drivers need to be side-by-side differing
> implementations in one driver. I suspect "server 127.127.28.x mode 2"
> can reasonably mean "using POSIX named shared memory of the form
> /ntpshm/[unit]" and either th
On Mon, Mar 28, 2011 at 02:40 UTC, Bruce Lilly wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 03:16:38 +, Dave Hart wrote:
> > We need not (and should not)
> > worry about endianness for a shared memory contract, though.
>
> Endianness (and more generally byte order) are of concern for precisely
> the same reas
There has been lively discussion on hack...@lists.ntp.org and
gpsd-...@lists.berlios.de (both of which have mailman archives on the
obvious URLs) about an improved shared memory layout and access regime.
It hasn't come up there, but I've been thinking about backwards
compatibility in an updated re
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 04:51:40 +, Harlan Stenn wrote:
> I don't see this one. If "flag1 0" (the current default) means SVID,
> and we decide that "flag1 1" means POSIX, what is the issue? How is
> that significantly different from changing 127.127.28.x to 127.127.y.x ?
Among others,
1. The
On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 03:16:38 +, Dave Hart wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 01:44 UTC, Bruce Lilly
> wrote:
>> 4. Assuming specific sizes for an integer is a really bad idea... "(64
>> bits making up the) clockTimeStamp* and receiveTimeStamp* fields"
>
> Actually nailing down the sizes of obj
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> On 3/27/2011 5:45 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the
>> BlackLists wrote:
>>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Let's see you spoof the Internet, GPS, and CDMA all at the same ti
On Sun, Mar 27, 2011 at 5:22 PM, Richard B. Gilbert
wrote:
>>
>> Also, jamming both GPS and CDMA would likely greatly arouse the ire of the
>> powers that be.
I agree that jamming is not spoofing although the most sophisticated
form of jamming to to spoof a signal. So the receiver gets a false
s
On 3/27/2011 5:45 PM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the
BlackLists wrote:
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Let's see you spoof the Internet, GPS, and CDMA all at the same time.
Any two would be sufficient!
GPS Jamm
Chris Albertson wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:40 AM, wrote:
>
>> Let's see you spoof the Internet, GPS, and CDMA all at the same time.
>
> Summary of above argument:
> "You can't spoof my system, therefor other systems can't be spoofed."
Nope.
Try reading it again, this time for compreh
Maarten Wiltink wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:5lpu58-278@mail.specsol.com...
>> Uwe Klein wrote:
> [...]
>>> The $something trading solutions that require exact timematch
>>> ( remember the recent rush of ntp users
>>> requiring u-second global time match )
>>> over a set of widely dist
unruh wrote:
> On 2011-03-25, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 05:01:07PM -0700, Chris Albertson wrote:
Security is so that you know you are not being spoofed. Or if you are
providing the time so that you can prove to your users t
Uwe Klein wrote:
> j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> One more time, if time is critical to your operation you do NOT have one
>> and only one NTP server.
>
> One more time, the times of well designed protocolls
> and infrastructure software are gone ;-)
> Today the PHB and his idiot savant mini
David Woolley wrote:
> j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> One more time, if time is critical to your operation you have several
>> sources to include local GPS and CDMA NTP boxes.
>
> You missed an important point, your CEO must also have a current science
> background. Most UK CEOs, at lea
E-Mail Sent to this address will be added to the BlackLists
wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
>> j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> Let's see you spoof the Internet, GPS, and CDMA all at the same time.
>>
>> Any two would be sufficient!
>
> GPS Jamming could take out the GPS and CDMA.
Grante
Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> On 3/25/2011 11:40 AM, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Uwe Klein wrote:
>>> j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>
If you specify the server by IP address, how does that happen and who
would bother to do it?
>>>
>>> The $something trading solutions that req
On 2011-03-25, Florin Andrei wrote:
> Unless "preempt" means "on error, abandon forever that entry in ntp.conf
> and rely on the other server entries instead" - in which case this would
> be a bad strategy after a long time. The man page is unclear whether any
> retry is performed on error wit
18 matches
Mail list logo
