From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general/663 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Lloyd Zusman Newsgroups: gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general Subject: Never mind! (was: Incorrect leap seconds in runit's log timestamps) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 19:34:28 -0500 Message-ID: References: <20050119203747.GA9017@greement.salle-s.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1106181414 11564 80.91.229.6 (20 Jan 2005 00:36:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2005 00:36:54 +0000 (UTC) Cc: =?iso-8859-1?q?Jo=EBl_Riou?= Original-X-From: supervision-return-902-gcsg-supervision=m.gmane.org@list.skarnet.org Thu Jan 20 01:36:48 2005 Return-path: Original-Received: from antah.skarnet.org ([212.85.147.14]) by deer.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1CrQJc-0000Cd-00 for ; Thu, 20 Jan 2005 01:36:48 +0100 Original-Received: (qmail 11330 invoked by uid 76); 20 Jan 2005 00:37:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact supervision-help@list.skarnet.org; run by ezmlm List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: Original-Received: (qmail 11324 invoked from network); 20 Jan 2005 00:37:09 -0000 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-To: supervision@list.skarnet.org Original-Lines: 18 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: hippo.asfast.com User-Agent: Gnus/5.110002 (No Gnus v0.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:ljcgrM+lDCfbozj3w+PuPVyd4IA= Original-Sender: news Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:663 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.comp.sysutils.supervision.general:663 Lloyd Zusman writes: > Any thoughts as to why 'runit' and 'clockspeed' are out of sync? ... and I figured out the answer to that question: the person who messed this up was me. I had written my own TAI-to-human-readable filter which didn't take the 01-01-1970@00:00:10Z start time into account ... I was taking the low-order 32-bits of the TAI value and incorrectly treating as a standard unix timestamp. I had forgotten that I was using my own filter to read the timestamps. Thanks again for your help and patience. -- Lloyd Zusman ljz@asfast.com God bless you.