zlacker

[parent] [thread] 6 comments
1. ssever+(OP)[view] [source] 2013-11-13 05:53:41
In fact I would recommend GPS calibrated hardware clocks with PTP.
replies(3): >>donava+x6 >>marshr+Jd >>duaneb+hh
◧
2. donava+x6[view] [source] 2013-11-13 08:27:06
>>ssever+(OP)
As last summers negative leap second fiascos demonstrated even a trusted source isnt enough.
replies(1): >>oh_sig+w11
◧
3. marshr+Jd[view] [source] 2013-11-13 11:10:50
>>ssever+(OP)
The point is not that time synchronization is inherently bad, only that it's usually not the correct thing for a distributed database to resolve update conflicts with.
replies(1): >>ssever+yH
◧
4. duaneb+hh[view] [source] 2013-11-13 12:15:22
>>ssever+(OP)
Ok, google.
◧◩
5. ssever+yH[view] [source] [discussion] 2013-11-13 16:33:13
>>marshr+Jd
Yes I completely agree. I fail to see how anyone would think that using a clock as a source of truth in a distributed system would be in anyway a good idea. As far as PTP it would be too expensive to deploy at large scale which was some of the motivation (i believe) behind truetime.
replies(1): >>marshr+NM
◧◩◪
6. marshr+NM[view] [source] [discussion] 2013-11-13 17:17:02
>>ssever+yH
To be fair, time was considered to provide a pretty universal total ordering up until fairly recently, i.e., 1903.
◧◩
7. oh_sig+w11[view] [source] [discussion] 2013-11-13 19:08:01
>>donava+x6
They are when you know that the leap-(nanosecond/second/minute/day) is coming up. When you know it is coming, you can "smear" the time difference over, let's say, the entire year, so when it happens, every system behaves correctly.
[go to top]