William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
You canrun ntp on the machine that runs the virtual hardware, and tell
the virutal machines to get their time from the real system.
This is not possible on real virtual machine systems.
You can do it on your Linux box at home where you virtualize some
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:45:16PM -0500, Mike S wrote:
On 6/16/2014 6:05 AM, Jochen Bern wrote:
There are four official slots - two primary, two secondary - over the
course of the year to insert leap seconds,
Those are only preferences. Leap seconds may be inserted at any month
boundary.
On -10.01.-28163 20:59, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Mon, Jun 23, 2014 at 11:45:16PM -0500, Mike S wrote:
On 6/16/2014 6:05 AM, Jochen Bern wrote:
There are four official slots - two primary, two secondary - over the
course of the year to insert leap seconds,
Those are only preferences. Leap
On 2014-06-24, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
You canrun ntp on the machine that runs the virtual hardware, and tell
the virutal machines to get their time from the real system.
This is not possible on real virtual machine systems.
You can do it on your
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 12:08:10PM +0200, Jochen Bern wrote:
I've browsed the results of the infamous poll and most of the people
voting abolish leap seconds apparently didn't mean to actually
*abolish* them (as in, decouple UT1 and UTC, or whatever their
successors might be called), but to
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2014-06-24, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
You canrun ntp on the machine that runs the virtual hardware, and tell
the virutal machines to get their time from the real system.
This is not possible on real virtual
Jochen Bern writes:
If those two restrictions were to be removed (assume a giant tooth
fairy if you must ;-), I don't see a reason why the current UT1-UTC
delta could not be communicated through an NTP-ng in the same way
today's NTP shoves server-client deltas around and corrects for them -
Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
You canrun ntp on the machine that runs the virtual hardware, and tell
the virutal machines to get their time from the real system.
This is not possible on real virtual machine systems.
You can do it on your Linux box at home
On 2014-06-24, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2014-06-24, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
You canrun ntp on the machine that runs the virtual hardware, and tell
the virutal machines to get their time from the real
On -10.01.-28163 20:59, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
As someone who implemented support for leap seconds in several
applications, I'd really like to see them gone. Fixing all software
where time is critical to handle them correctly may not be possible
So your POV is that of someone managing
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 8:32 AM, Dave Holland d...@biff.org.uk wrote:
Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
This is not possible on real virtual machine systems.
VMware's documentation disagrees:
You've inverted the conceit*.
If you *define* a real virtual machine hypervisor as one that
doesn't run
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:34 AM, William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2014-06-24, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
It is not possible to run programs on the bare hardware.
Since the whole VM is a set of programs running on the bare hardware,
this is clearly wrong
Yes but ... sometimes we
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 03:46:15PM +0200, Jochen Bern wrote:
While I may have started from the same setting, I *did* try to put
myself into the shoes of astronomers and people operating satellite
systems (which, ironically, includes the popular stratum 0 of GPS).
Do these people work just with
Paul tik-...@bodosom.net wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 9:34 AM, William Unruh un...@invalid.ca wrote:
On 2014-06-24, Rob nom...@example.com wrote:
It is not possible to run programs on the bare hardware.
Since the whole VM is a set of programs running on the bare hardware,
this is clearly
Jochen Bern jochen.b...@linworks.de wrote:
While I may have started from the same setting, I *did* try to put
myself into the shoes of astronomers and people operating satellite
systems (which, ironically, includes the popular stratum 0 of GPS).
Note that while those people would like to keep
On -10.01.-28163 20:59, John Hasler wrote:
Jochen Bern writes:
If those two restrictions were to be removed (assume a giant tooth
fairy if you must ;-), I don't see a reason why the current UT1-UTC
delta could not be communicated through an NTP-ng in the same way
today's NTP shoves
On -10.01.-28163 20:59, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 03:46:15PM +0200, Jochen Bern wrote:
While I may have started from the same setting, I *did* try to put
myself into the shoes of astronomers and people operating satellite
systems (which, ironically, includes the popular
Miroslav writes:
Do these people work just with UTC? I'd think it's not accurate enough
for their purposes and they need to include the current UTC-UT1 offset
anyway.
I believe that astronomers use Terrestrial Time, which is defined in
terms of TAI.
--
John Hasler
jhas...@newsguy.com
Dancing
Jochen Bern writes:
I don't know of any telecopes, satellite dishes, ... with an aperture
/ beam so narrow as to being forced to have the tracking mechanism
based on UT1 instead of UTC, but that doesn't mean that there *are no*
cases where you need a better realtime approximation of UT1
Jochen Bern jochen.b...@linworks.de wrote:
While I may have started from the same setting, I *did* try to put
myself into the shoes of astronomers and people operating satellite
systems (which, ironically, includes the popular stratum 0 of GPS).
Note that the GPS system does not use UTC.
GPS
Jochen Bern writes:
Having computer clocks run on UTC(frozen) instead of TAI makes the
adaptation easier today, more difficult tomorrow
How? You just start distributing the leap second corrections in the
zone files. Much simpler and no more need for flag days.
--
John Hasler
On 24/06/14 17:25, Jochen Bern wrote:
I'm pretty sure that you cannot operate a system like GPS without having
a better idea of UT1 than UTC, even if (IIRC) the satellites' downlinks
do not disseminate that data to the terminal units. No idea whether
I assume the DUT1 information is implicit
On 6/24/2014 5:59 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
To me, it seems the reasonable thing to do would be to decouple UTC and
UT1 completely and make the adjustment at a higher level like
timezones if necessary.
You're doing it wrong. If you don't want leap seconds, use a timescale
which doesn't have
23 matches
Mail list logo
