On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 16:22:16 -0600, Paul Gilmartin <paulgboul...@aim.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 22:02:30 -0700, Jack J. Woehr wrote: >> >>> We have empirical proof of that at one of my clients . Took down a >>> monitoring system this evening. >> >>And we were not alone: >>https://blog.cloudflare.com/how-and-why-the-leap-second-affected-cloudflare-dns/ >> >I read the article. The system involved duplicated the second at 23:59:59 >so a time reading late in the first occurrence subtracted from a reading >early in the second occurrence produced a negative elapsed time. A >validity check failed and triggered a shutdown. Thanks. I didn't get that when I read the article. From a possibly naive standpoint, I think the underlying system should have simply accepted 23:59:60, rather than duplicating 23:59:59. Obviously it recognized the situation or it would have gone to 00:00:00 a second early, rather than duplicating 23:59:59. So it's a broken lower-level function, requiring all the higher layers to work around it. (Don't you often grumble at z/OS for that in other situations, gil?) -- Walt ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
