Path: csiph.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!news.alt.net From: "James Wilkinson Sword" Newsgroups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,comp.lang.c,comp.lang.ada,comp.programming,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.os.linux.ubuntu Subject: Re: 'Leap Second' to Be Added on New Year's Eve This Year Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2016 23:42:01 -0000 Organization: ~ Lines: 24 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: Opera Mail/1.0 (Win32) Xref: csiph.com alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt:35505 comp.lang.c:100747 comp.lang.ada:32630 comp.programming:7216 alt.comp.os.windows-10:32295 alt.os.linux.ubuntu:194602 On Sat, 24 Dec 2016 03:44:36 -0000, Char Jackson wrote: > On Fri, 23 Dec 2016 19:57:25 -0500, Jason wrote: > >> On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 17:40:35 -0500 "Jonathan N. Little" >> wrote in article >>> Neat idea. Although most services can handle a 1-second blip. >>> >> >> Google reported that there is some kind of lock required with multiple >> servers that can't handle the sudden 1-second change. That's what >> motivated them to adopt the smearing scheme. > > For the networking gear that has an issue dealing with leap seconds, > it's not the leap second itself that causes problems. It's the *notice* > that a leap second is coming. Certain NTP clients totally choke when > they get that flag. It doesn't seem like it would be a big deal, but > it's a big deal, indeed. That's why leap smearing avoids the problem. > With smearing, there's no flag. Can you explain exactly why they get upset? -- A.I.D.S. = Arsehole Injected Death Sentence