2009/1/1 M. Warner Losh <[email protected]>: > In message: <[email protected]> > Neon John <[email protected]> writes: > : On Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:57:33 -0700 (MST), "M. Warner Losh" <[email protected]> > : wrote: > : > : >In message: <[email protected]> > : > "Robert Darlington" <[email protected]> writes: > : >: Okay, not very fun. I was hoping to see ...58,59,60,00. Instead my > : >: system ticked :59 twice. Here's the output of my not so very > : >: scientific logs (up arrow, enter, over and over): > : > > : >That's the correct output. It isn't possible to tick 60 with a POSIX > : >time_t, so second 59 is replayed so that we don't cross a day > : >boundary. > : > > : >Warner > : > > : > : I wonder how application software handled that. Say, a transaction > processing > : machine handling a few thousand transactions a second where the time stamp > : matters. What did the high res timer do? > > Same thing it normally does... > > : I'm thinking about, for example, stock trading where the first bid wins. > : Sub-second resolution is needed there, I think. > > That's one of many reasons why I think that leap seconds are > fundamentally incompatible with POSIX. > > : I wonder if this was a mini-Y2K and folks haven't realized it yet?
Seems to have worked perfectly under OpenSUSE 11.1, kernel 2.6.27, with NTP here. It's just the poor Windblows systems that I worry about. 73, Steve -- Steve Rooke - ZL3TUV & G8KVD & JAKDTTNW Omnium finis imminet _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
