On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 5:52 PM, Warren Young wrote:
> On 7/2/2012 10:24 AM, Peter Eckel wrote:
>>
>> ... and leap seconds are not even scarce.
>
> An event on an unpredictable schedule averaging 1.7 years since 1972
> doesn't count as "scarce"?
"Unpredictible" means you don't know something is co
On 7/2/2012 2:06 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> Dumb question, but I haven't followed this thread that closely - been busy
> at work - but why not
> $ service ntp stop
> $ ntpdate
> $ service ntp start
Because that results in a call to adjtimex(2), which is also the syscall
used by ntpd, w
On 7/2/2012 10:24 AM, Peter Eckel wrote:
>
> ... and leap seconds are not even scarce.
An event on an unpredictable schedule averaging 1.7 years since 1972
doesn't count as "scarce"?
That's the answer to Les's outrage, too, by the way. Might as well
expect the JRE to have code to deal with cos
On 07/02/2012 01:06 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Dumb question, but I haven't followed this thread that closely - been busy
> at work - but why not
> $ service ntp stop
> $ ntpdate
> $ service ntp start
Today that might work, but would be slower than using "date". On
Saturday, I think tha
Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 07/02/2012 12:54 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Sooo... Are the 6.x boxes that did not exhibit a problem yet still
>> likely to have it if you start a threaded program or did it have to
>> happen in the 1 second window?
>
> As far as I know, it could still pop up. The futex
On 07/02/2012 12:54 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Sooo... Are the 6.x boxes that did not exhibit a problem yet still
> likely to have it if you start a threaded program or did it have to
> happen in the 1 second window?
As far as I know, it could still pop up. The futex handling in the
kernel will b
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 2:10 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 07/02/2012 11:45 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> So it wasn't anything special about java? I did find one one
>> not-very-busy instance of a Centos 6.x with a java application still
>> running that did not appear to have a problem.
>
> Only t
On 07/02/2012 12:00 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> It may not - but it is always annoying to me when committees get
> together and move arbitrary things around just because they can.
The change wasn't made just because someone could. It was made to
improve software and script portability, to make and
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
>
>> You aren't done booting until you complete the init scripts for
>> runlevel 1.
>
> You may not have noticed, but there is no longer any such thing. Red
> Hat's init system never booted *through* runlevel 1, the way that some
> other Unix
On 07/02/2012 11:45 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> So it wasn't anything special about java? I did find one one
> not-very-busy instance of a Centos 6.x with a java application still
> running that did not appear to have a problem.
Only that java applications tend to be threaded, and threaded
applic
On 07/02/2012 11:18 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> You aren't done booting until you complete the init scripts for
> runlevel 1.
You may not have noticed, but there is no longer any such thing. Red
Hat's init system never booted *through* runlevel 1, the way that some
other Unix systems did.
Even o
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Stephen Harris wrote:
>
> I'm just saying that I don't see it causing any true pain.
>
It may not - but it is always annoying to me when committees get
together and move arbitrary things around just because they can. And
even more so when they want to turn Linux,
On 07/02/2012 10:37 AM, Peter Eckel wrote:
>
> they do. But the leap second is quite a different thing: Actually the
> time doesn't really diverge from the server's, but the stratum 1
> server deliveres a totally unexpected 01:59:60, and the stratum 2
> server follows.
That's not quite correct. T
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 07/02/2012 09:24 AM, Peter Eckel wrote:
>> On the other hand I'm a bit surprised that the problems were
>> comparably few - actually there is a time '01:59:60' for one second,
>> and any plausibility check I've ever seen assumes that minut
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 01:18:58PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> You aren't done booting until you complete the init scripts for
> runlevel 1. Having to have an extra copy of the kernel on yet another
> device to even get started seems wrong from a minimalist approach, and
There's no extra kernel
On 07/02/2012 09:24 AM, Peter Eckel wrote:
> On the other hand I'm a bit surprised that the problems were
> comparably few - actually there is a time '01:59:60' for one second,
> and any plausibility check I've ever seen assumes that minutes and
> seconds are in the range from 0..59. Wrongly, it se
On 07/02/2012 08:56 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> There are still good reasons to not require unnecessary
> stuff on your boot device in spite of the fact that you've managed to
> find one way to work around the problem on one kind of hardware at a
> cost you can afford.
Typically your boot device is
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Stephen Harris wrote:
>
>> > _TODAY_ (where I have an MMC card in my wallet that's almost 1000 times
>> > bigger than that old hard disk!) the rationale for a / and /usr split is a
>> > lot less.
>>
>> No it isn't. There are still good reasons to not require unnec
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 07:37:46PM +0200, Peter Eckel wrote:
> Maybe 24 hours notification in advance did not seem long enough for
> the smear interval. I doubt it, because I would not really like the time
> to differ from the real time for more than a day.
Yeah, there are some regularity requirem
Hi Les,
> Interesting, but I thought that ntp clients always advanced the clock
> by small fractions of a second anyway even when the master source
> differs by more.
they do. But the leap second is quite a different thing: Actually the time
doesn't really diverge from the server's, but the str
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 18:11:25 +0200
Peter Eckel wrote:
> I did not have any problems on CentOS 5.8, but on one CentOS 6.2 box running
> a Java application.
I had problems with Firefox on four computers running fully updated Centos 6.
Firefox was suddenly taking up a lot of CPU power showing nothin
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Stephen Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 11:09:41AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> I'm sort of curious about how a bug of this magnitude slips through
>> the QA process (into java and RHEL, not CentOS). With all the furor
>> about y2k, did no one even bother
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Peter Eckel wrote:
> On the other hand I'm a bit surprised that the problems were comparably few -
> actually there is a time '01:59:60' for one second, and any plausibility
> check I've ever seen assumes that minutes and seconds are in the range from
> 0..59. W
Hi Les,
> I'm sort of curious about how a bug of this magnitude slips through
> the QA process (into java and RHEL, not CentOS). With all the furor
> about y2k, did no one even bother to simulate a leap second ahead of
> the real occurrence?
... and leap seconds are not even scarce. According t
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 11:09:41AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I'm sort of curious about how a bug of this magnitude slips through
> the QA process (into java and RHEL, not CentOS). With all the furor
> about y2k, did no one even bother to simulate a leap second ahead of
> the real occurrence?
T
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 10:56:50AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Stephen Harris wrote:
> >
> > _TODAY_ (where I have an MMC card in my wallet that's almost 1000 times
> > bigger than that old hard disk!) the rationale for a / and /usr split is a
> > lot less.
>
> N
Hi Keith,
> My Centos 5.8 box is running ntpd, and I did not notice any
> problems with it.
I did not have any problems on CentOS 5.8, but on one CentOS 6.2 box running a
Java application.
Kind Regards,
Peter.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@ce
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Keith Roberts wrote:
>
> I thought this was some sort of late April fools joke,
> untill I read the article about ntpd on slashdot.
I'm sort of curious about how a bug of this magnitude slips through
the QA process (into java and RHEL, not CentOS). With all the f
On Sun, 1 Jul 2012, m...@tdiehl.org wrote:
> To: CentOS mailing list
> From: m...@tdiehl.org
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] leap second
>
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2012, Erez Zarum wrote:
>
>> You could have just done:
>> service ntpd stop; date -s "`date`"; service ntpd start
>> Fixed here without even stopping
Giles Coochey wrote:
> On 02/07/2012 14:48, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
>> Am 01.07.2012 07:40, schrieb Les Mikesell:
>> [distinction between /bin and /usr/bin]
> 3) Cheap retail hard drives passed the 100 megabyte mark around 1990, and
> partition resizing software showed up somewhere around there (par
On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Stephen Harris wrote:
>
> _TODAY_ (where I have an MMC card in my wallet that's almost 1000 times
> bigger than that old hard disk!) the rationale for a / and /usr split is a
> lot less.
No it isn't. There are still good reasons to not require unnecessary
stuff o
On Mon, Jul 02, 2012 at 03:04:50PM +0100, Giles Coochey wrote:
> As r...@landley.net mentioned on the busybox list a couple of years ago:
> bureaucrats who never question _why_ they're doing things. It stopped
> making
> any sense before Linux was ever invented, for multiple reasons:
>
> 1) Ea
On 02/07/2012 14:48, Tilman Schmidt wrote:
Am 01.07.2012 07:40, schrieb Les Mikesell:
[distinction between /bin and /usr/bin]
The concept really comes from the original unix, which back in the
day, often had really tiny boot disks and might mount everything else
over the network or use different
Am 01.07.2012 07:40, schrieb Les Mikesell:
[distinction between /bin and /usr/bin]
> The concept really comes from the original unix, which back in the
> day, often had really tiny boot disks and might mount everything else
> over the network or use different drive types to hold the larger /usr
> s
On 07/02/2012 10:21 AM, Peter Eckel wrote:
> Hi Morgens,
>
>> Some java processes were >100% CPU after the leap second was added.
> same problem here ... OpenNMS hat 100% CPU and didn't do anything anymore.
>
> Rebooting is not necessary, though. For me it worked to just set the time
> manually on
Hi Morgens,
> Some java processes were >100% CPU after the leap second was added.
same problem here ... OpenNMS hat 100% CPU and didn't do anything anymore.
Rebooting is not necessary, though. For me it worked to just set the time
manually once, and everything was back to normal.
It doesn't
36 matches
Mail list logo
