Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S965153AbVIOGug (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:50:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S932586AbVIOGuf (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:50:35 -0400 Received: from rrzmta2.rz.uni-regensburg.de ([132.199.1.17]:3564 "EHLO rrzmta2.rz.uni-regensburg.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932527AbVIOGue (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Sep 2005 02:50:34 -0400 From: "Ulrich Windl" Organization: Universitaet Regensburg, Klinikum To: john stultz Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 08:49:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: NTP leap second question Cc: lkml , yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, Roman Zippel , joe-lkml@rameria.de Message-ID: <43293591.19922.2890E4@Ulrich.Windl.rkdvmks1.ngate.uni-regensburg.de> In-reply-to: <1126724052.3455.80.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> References: <43286E4B.1070809@mvista.com> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (4.30 public beta 1) Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-description: Mail message body X-Content-Conformance: HerringScan-0.26/Sophos-P=3.95.0+V=3.95+U=2.07.102+R=04 July 2005+T=108170@20050915.063549Z Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1786 Lines: 43 On 14 Sep 2005 at 11:54, john stultz wrote: > On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 11:39 -0700, George Anzinger wrote: > > It appears that a leap second is scheduled. One of our customers is > > concerened about his application around this. Could one of you NTP > > wizards help me to understand NTP a bit better. > > First: I'm not an NTP wizard by any means, but I'll see if I can't help. > > > First, I wonder if we suppressed the leap second insert and time then > > became out of sync by a second, would NTP "creap" the time back in sync > > or would the one second out of sync cause it to quit? > > The ntpd's slew-bound is .125s I believe, so a second offset would cause > ntpd to adjust the time using stime()/settimeofday(). You could run ntpd > with the -x option which forces it to always slew the clock. This > however could cause the initial sync to take quite some time. > > > > Assuming NTP would do the "creap" thing, is there a way to tell NTP not > > to insert the leap second? > > If I recall, leapsecond implementations are a pretty contentious issue. > Some folks have suggested having the kernels note the leapsecond and > slew the clock internally. This sounds nicer then just adding or No! Never slew a leap second: It will take too long! It's all over after one second. If you slew, you time will be incorrect for an extended time. Ulrich > removing a second, but I do not know how that would affect synchronizing > between a number of systems. So I'll defer the larger discussion to the > real NTP wizards. > - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/