Re: hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- From: ibuprofin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Moe Trin)
- Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2008 16:03:46 -0600
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, in the Usenet newsgroup comp.os.linux.setup, in article
<eab55ae8-c7cf-4aae-9f36-c6c34f2118c3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
cc-tec@xxxxxx wrote:
@Old guy
NOTE: Posting from groups.google.com (or some web-forums) dramatically
reduces the chance of your post being seen. Find a real news server.
i'll try on the next problem, for the moment it's a decision between
keeping this thread and starting a new one,
Shouldn't matter - after all, those of us who are not using
groups.google.com have no trouble replying to the thread. The problem is
that a growing number of people are filtering all posts from that
server because of continuing intentionally uncontrolled abuse.
i'd write it, sles (SuSE Linux Enterprise Server) incl. the accurate
version, above, pls. check there, it (sles) does! set the system time
from rtc on bootup, and does! write it back on shutdown, but does do
the second in a wrong way with 22 or 23 seconds fault when configured
to use 'tai' and the 'right' zoneinfo file,
SuSE writing to the RTC on shutdown is a function of the system
shutdown scripts. You may find it useful to look through those, and
either disable the action, or give it the "right" options (what-ever
they may be).
as a fundumentalist - hi cia - i'd like to have correct times even if
network connection is broken, plausible?
What is "correct"? If you are doing astronomical tasks, then I can
see setting the system to TAI - but all other tasks would likely be
served better by using UTC. Again, if you really need accurate time,
then you shouldn't be using the computer times until they have been set
synchronized to an accurate time server of some appropriate kind.
Here, the RTC in trashbox7 is set to localtime (DST isn't used here).
thats plausible for me, i think 'my' differences come from the
calculations the system has do to between utc and localtime, your's
does not have to do those, localtime - afaik - is ok for people
without dst, others need utc to get automated switch to and from dst,
The RTC is only used to set time at boot, and as trashbox7 is a system
used for testing things in our computer lab, it's not likely to be
moved to another timezone. However all systems here are aware of time
zones, and can determine the current time in any zone using zdump and
referring to the appropriate zonefile. That has absolutely nothing to
do with the timezone the RTC is using.
at the moment: /usr/share/zoneinfo/Europe/Berlin, as i do it the
'dirty' way, the problems occur when it's pointed to /usr/share/
zoneinfo/right/Europe/Berlin
The problem is that "right" directory. Few use it, because it differs
from what everyone else is using.
'Bernstein Time' is tai, invented some decades back as solution for
the urgent need of a stable monotone time base, try gps without or
trash satellites with other sources, your problem,
TAI was not invented by Professor Bernstein, any more than UTC was
invented by Professor Mills. My concern as a network admin is to have
standardized time. Our systems syslogd logs at localtime because we
are "here". Our network log servers keep log times on UTC, because
network events can occur anywhere in the world. Thus, I need the
correct UTC, and not TAI or any other offset. I'm not aware of
any system within this facility that even bothers to compile the "right"
zone files because they serve no useful purpose to us. Anyone who
may send me a report about network activities would be using either
UTC or their local time zone. I would not expect a TAI timestamp
simply because we are not in the astronomy business.
Old guy
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- From: Unruh
- Re: hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- References:
- hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- From: cc-tec
- Re: hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- From: Nico Kadel-Garcia
- Re: hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- From: Michael Black
- Re: hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- From: cc-tec
- Re: hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- From: Moe Trin
- Re: hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- From: Unruh
- Re: hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- From: Moe Trin
- Re: hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- From: Unruh
- Re: hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- From: Moe Trin
- Re: hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- From: cc-tec
- hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- Prev by Date: Re: hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- Next by Date: Re: hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- Previous by thread: Re: hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- Next by thread: Re: hwclock problem with leapseconds - posix?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|