From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Mar 25 19:40:33 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C35BD16A404 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:40:33 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from igloo.linux.gr (igloo.linux.gr [62.1.205.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D4D813C4C4 for ; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:40:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: from kobe.laptop (dialup96.ach.sch.gr [81.186.70.96]) (authenticated bits=128) by igloo.linux.gr (8.13.8/8.13.8/Debian-3) with ESMTP id l2PJdxOk018682 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:40:07 +0300 Received: from kobe.laptop (kobe.laptop [127.0.0.1]) by kobe.laptop (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id l2PJdqKb080110; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:39:53 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Received: (from keramida@localhost) by kobe.laptop (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id l2PJSrAr077947; Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:28:53 +0300 (EEST) (envelope-from keramida@ceid.upatras.gr) Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 22:28:53 +0300 From: Giorgos Keramidas To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org, deeptech71@gmail.com Message-ID: <20070325192852.GA57485@kobe.laptop> References: <200703241604.l2OG4AU7084283@lurza.secnetix.de> <4605C415.7000206@gmail.com> <46042B3A.7070100@gmail.com> <200703241604.l2OG4AU7084283@lurza.secnetix.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4605C415.7000206@gmail.com> <200703241604.l2OG4AU7084283@lurza.secnetix.de> X-Hellug-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-Hellug-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (not cached, score=-3.671, required 5, autolearn=not spam, ALL_TRUSTED -1.80, AWL 0.53, BAYES_00 -2.60, DNS_FROM_RFC_ABUSE 0.20) X-Hellug-MailScanner-From: keramida@ceid.upatras.gr X-Spam-Status: No Cc: Subject: Re: 64bit timestamp X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 25 Mar 2007 19:40:33 -0000 On 2007-03-24 17:04, Oliver Fromme wrote: > deeptech71@gmail.com wrote: > > UNIX Timestamp: > > 32 bits, starts from year 1970, ticks every second > > capable of representing the time from 1970 to 2106 > > No, the UNIX time_t is a signed value, so it ranges from 1901 to 2038 > when it's a 32bit int (such as on FreeBSD; Solaris has a 64bit time_t, > for example): > > $ date -r $(( - 2 ** 31 )) > Fri Dec 13 21:45:52 CET 1901 > $ date -r $(( 2 ** 31 - 1 )) > Tue Jan 19 04:14:07 CET 2038 > > (I'm using a privately patched version of /bin/sh which knows the "**" > operator, among other things.) > > > 'til then, computers will change > > sufficient for file timestamps, comparing file times > > FreeBSD's UFS2 already uses 96bit timestamps, where 64 bits are used > for seconds and 32 bits are used for nanoseconds. Is that sufficient > for you? > > See for the actual definitions: On 2007-03-25 01:36, deeptech71@gmail.com wrote: >Oliver Fromme wrote: >> FreeBSD's UFS2 already uses 96bit timestamps, where 64 bits are used >> for seconds and 32 bits are used for nanoseconds. Is that sufficient >> for you? > > What the hell for? ``Just because it can.'' Seriously now, please show some more respect to Oliver and the time he spent to research and write up a very informative reply. It's not very nice to post an original email like the one you posted, posing a relatively unintelligible question, and then reply ``what the hell for?'' to Oliver's email. At least *he* tried to find out something by reading the source, he wrote a reply with details pointers to places where you can find out more for yourself, and was enough of a gentleman to *avoid* using potentially offensive words. Let's be a little more cordial to the ones who help us, shall we? - Giorgos