On 2015-01-14, Phil W Lee p...@lee-family.me.uk wrote:
brian utterback brian.utterb...@oracle.com considered Mon, 12 Jan
2015 04:29:21 GMT the perfect time to write:
On 1/11/2015 4:56 PM, Rob wrote:
Michael Moroney moro...@world.std.spaamtrap.com wrote:
If I have a system synchronized with a
Harlan Stenn st...@ntp.org disait le 01/13/15 que :
Martin Burnicki writes:
Terje Mathisen wrote:
I hate to admit it, but I'm starting to believe Google's approach,
where they smear the leap second over something like a day, might be
one of the better workarounds.
This won't work for a
Erwan David writes:
Harlan Stenn st...@ntp.org disait le 01/13/15 que :
Martin Burnicki writes:
Terje Mathisen wrote:
I hate to admit it, but I'm starting to believe Google's approach,
where they smear the leap second over something like a day, might be
one of the better workarounds.
Brian Utterback wrote:
On 1/12/2015 6:29 AM, Mike Cook wrote:
Not true. That would violate POSIX. There is no properly implements,
or right thing.
Perhaps you're unaware that POSIX isn't the One True Operating System
specification.
Properly implements means it follows the well defined, 40
[Context is google-smear.]
For distributed logging you have to use the same method for every single
node, but that is the case today as well. :-(
I.e. with one domain smearing and another stepping, the times between them
will be skewed over the entire smearing period.
How often do people
Hal Murray writes:
[Context is google-smear.]
For distributed logging you have to use the same method for every single
node, but that is the case today as well. :-(
I.e. with one domain smearing and another stepping, the times between them
will be skewed over the entire smearing
Harlan Stenn wrote:
Marco Marongiu writes:
On 12/01/15 06:10, William Unruh wrote:
I also admit I do not know how windows impliments leap
seconds.
I don't have a reference, but I remember that at the time of the latest
leap second I read that Windows will half the clock speed at 23:59:59 so
Terje Mathisen wrote:
Brian Utterback wrote:
On 1/12/2015 6:29 AM, Mike Cook wrote:
Not true. That would violate POSIX. There is no properly implements,
or right thing.
Perhaps you're unaware that POSIX isn't the One True Operating System
specification.
Properly implements means it follows
Brian Inglis wrote:
On 2015-01-12 00:32, Harlan Stenn wrote:
Brian Inglis writes:
Current OpenSSL version is 1.0.1k since maintenance improved
after Heartbleed encouraged LF/CII and others to fund OpenSSL.
Which OpenSSL version is currently required?
Any way that support of updated OpenSSL
On 13/01/2015 08:58, Hal Murray wrote:
[]
How often do people working with log files from 2 systems care about
fractions of a second?
I am comparing log files with a user in another country, where we are
looking at errors in satellite data. As there can be many messages per
second, using
Marco Marongiu wrote:
On 12/01/15 11:48, Martin Burnicki wrote:
Fortunately Dave Hart had some time to have a closer look at this, and
fix it for 4.2.6, so unless something has been broken again in the mean
time it should be fixed in 4.2.6 and later, and should work correctly.
Let me
David Taylor writes:
On 13/01/2015 08:58, Hal Murray wrote:
[]
How often do people working with log files from 2 systems care about
fractions of a second?
I have spoken with enterprise users who have to correlate logging
timestamps between 50-200 (or more) systems in cloud deployments and
Martin Burnicki writes:
Terje Mathisen wrote:
I hate to admit it, but I'm starting to believe Google's approach,
where they smear the leap second over something like a day, might be
one of the better workarounds.
This won't work for a bunch of folks. Other folks *hate* this approach
because
Harlan Stenn writes:
David Taylor writes:
On 13/01/2015 08:58, Hal Murray wrote:
[]
How often do people working with log files from 2 systems care about
fractions of a second?
I have spoken with enterprise users who have to correlate logging
timestamps between 50-200 (or more)
14 matches
Mail list logo
