In message: <[email protected]> "Steve Rooke" <[email protected]> writes: : 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.
Actually, most of the effects on systems that use an absolute time for timeouts. posix threads can cause a stutter of 1s. This can be quite hard to detect in many systems, but very bad in others... Warner _______________________________________________ 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.
