[ntp:questions] Re: Leap second talks are postponed
David J Taylor
david-taylor at blueyonder.co.not-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk.invalid
Mon Nov 21 16:20:02 UTC 2005
David L. Mills wrote:
>> Windows W32time appears to handle leap seconds better than NTP on
>> Windows right now, according to earlier discussions - it avoids the
>> step change. David
> You are gloriously misinformed. The NTP daemon does not do leap
> seconds; the kernel does. NTP is not good or bad, just the messenger.
> However, the model now used in FreeBSD, Solaris, Linux and Tru64 is
> derived from my code as described on the NTP project page. You get to
> smear me in the media based on that model, not NTP. There is no step
> change in that model, just stopping the clock for the leap second,
> but allowing forward progress to conform to the correctness
Well, of course, it's implementation dependant, so my comment was
addressed to the implementation part, not to NTP itself. Good to hear
that some OS kernels have adopted your ideas.
If I'm wrong, please correct me but, as I understand it:
- NTP will step the clock on Windows at the leap second or sometime
- W32time will slew the clock at double its normal rate soon after the
leap second. This behaviour has only recently been reported.
To me, the slew seems better than the step. I believe that the Windows
implementors are looking at updating the code.
More information about the questions