4 ms·
Why does everyone refer to this as "Google's system"? The idea of slowing down clocks instead of turning them back is very-very old. In fact 10 years ago one of
by drewhk 13y ago
Why does everyone refer to this as "Google's system"? The idea of slowing down clocks instead of turning them back is very-very old. In fact 10 years ago one of the first thing we were thought at university in the Embedded Systems course is that you never turn clocks back. Am I missing something here? (honest question, no irony or sarcasm intended)
- Someone 13y agoThis is not slowing down a clock for a while because it runs fast, but slowing it down to make it run too slow, and then skipping a leap second. The first is good; it corrects an error without introducing the catastrophe of a clock running backwards. The second, according to some is bad because it introduces a temporary error without any benefit. According to others, it does introduce a benefit: you won't have to deal with leap seconds.
- drewhk 13y ago> This is not slowing down a clock for a while because it runs fast, but slowing it down to make it run too slow, and then skipping a leap second. Ok, I see the difference. The issue here is not preserving monotonicity but keeping the semantics of the "wall clock".