Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 3 Jan 2006 17:17:52 +1100
From:      Peter Jeremy <PeterJeremy@optushome.com.au>
To:        "M. Warner Losh" <imp@bsdimp.com>
Cc:        current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: FreeBSD handles leapsecond correctly
Message-ID:  <20060103061752.GE42228@cirb503493.alcatel.com.au>
In-Reply-To: <20060102.221046.75255380.imp@bsdimp.com>
References:  <73774.1136109554@critter.freebsd.dk> <m3psnaenl9.fsf@merlin.emma.line.org> <20060102.221046.75255380.imp@bsdimp.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 2006-Jan-02 22:10:46 -0700, M. Warner Losh wrote:
>The biggest problem with compiling leap seconds into this is that you
>can only be sure that leap seconds are right for at most 6 months.
>Sure, you can make statistical statements about how likely a leap
>second is or isn't going to be, but this non-determinism is a big
>problem.  There's no way you can deploy a system and have a sane leap
>second table without a connection to the outside world...

The Islamic calendar is based on lunar _sightings_: If it's cloudy,
the calendar shifts a day.  This wreaks even more havoc than the
odd leap-second and many Islamic countries have therefore switched
to using almanac based dates.

Actually, I'd suggest that you can't build a system that keeps any
sort of accurate time without a connection to the outside world or a
quite substantial budget.  If you assume a leap second every 5 years
then the difference between UTC and TAI is about 6e-9 - being able
to tell the difference requires an atomic clock - which isn't common
in embedded systems.

>Leap seconds are hard and I hate them.

Which of the competing alternatives would you prefer?

-- 
Peter Jeremy



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20060103061752.GE42228>