From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: steffen@sdaoden.eu (Steffen Nurpmeso) Date: Wed, 04 Jan 2017 14:32:02 +0100 Subject: [TUHS] Leap Second In-Reply-To: <586bc353.tOFm/S0IGecYYlh6%schily@schily.net> References: <20161229002105.GB94858@server.rulingia.com> <0d5eeef9-3dbb-0ddd-1b22-51fecee735d8@gmail.com> <586bc353.tOFm/S0IGecYYlh6%schily@schily.net> Message-ID: <20170104133202.VIWUz5j-a%steffen@sdaoden.eu> schily at schily.net (Joerg Schilling) wrote: |Tony Finch wrote: |> sds wrote: |>> Important question: did anybody have an "exciting" new year because \ |>> of a leap |>> second bug? |> |> I've been collecting failure reports on the LEAPSECS list | |https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-and-why-the-leap-second-affected-cloudflare\ |-dns/ | |"go" seems to have a related bug. | |BTW: The POSIX standard intentionally does not include leap seconds \ |in the UNIX |time interface as it seems that this would cause more problems than \ |it claims |to fix. I think it is a problem, or better a gap, a void, with the current standard that software has no option to become informed of the event of a leap second for one, but further more that CLOCK_TAI is not available. I think it would make things easier if software which wants just that can get it, e.g., for periodic timer events etc. This is surely not a healing given that most timestamps etc. are based on UTC, but i think the severity of the problems could possibly be lowered. Especially now that multi-hour smears seem to become used by big companies it seems to be important to have a correct clock available. This is in fact something i don't really understand, at _that_ level that is to say. If, e.g., Google and Bloomberg both would have stated instead that they slew the leap second, then only a single second would have been affected, instead of multiple hours. --steffen