FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-02-2012, 04:09 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default leap second

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Keith Roberts <keith@karsites.net> 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 furor
about y2k, did no one even bother to simulate a leap second ahead of
the real occurrence?

> My Centos 5.8 box is running ntpd, and I did not notice any
> problems with it. I do a weekly yum update early Sunday
> mornings, but AFAIR I have not rebooted the box yet.

I don't think it affected 5.x.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-02-2012, 04:11 PM
Peter Eckel
 
Default leap second

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@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-02-2012, 04:24 PM
Stephen Harris
 
Default leap second

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?

The kernel bug is a race condition; simulations may not have detected
it.

--

rgds
Stephen
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-02-2012, 04:24 PM
Peter Eckel
 
Default leap second

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 to <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leap_second>, this was the third one since 2000, and it is actually the first time I heard of any problems.

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 seems.

Apparently Google uses an approach that looks much less risky to me - they use a time window over which they 'smear' the leap second by making their time servers lie about the time for a while, making it pass a little bit slower. That way they avoid the unlucky 61st second and still advance the clocks within a reasonable time.

<http://googleblog.blogspot.de/2011/09/time-technology-and-leaping-seconds.html>

Kind Regards,

Peter.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-02-2012, 04:25 PM
Steven Stern
 
Default Leap Second

On 07/02/2012 10:25 AM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I recommend that anyone not familiar with the term "leap second" check
> out all of their Linux systems. Most likely a piece of software is
> running in an infinite loop due to the added second on July 1st. Your
> system may also appear to be running normally but double-check your
> system load to make sure it is less than 1.00. I had several affected
> systems so Fedora was not ready (and I didn't bother to ready my systems).
>
> If you have high system load there are two solutions:
> 1. Reboot, or...
> 2. Manually set the date with "date". Ex: "date 07021025" for July 2nd,
> 10:25 AM.
>
> FYI,
> Michael
>

No problem on two Fedora systems, two Centos 5 systems and two Centos 6
systems. What application went wacky for you?

--
-- Steve


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 07-02-2012, 04:31 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default leap second

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Peter Eckel <lists@eckel-edv.de> 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 seems.
>
> Apparently Google uses an approach that looks much less risky to me - they use a time window over which they 'smear' the leap second by making their time servers lie about the time for a while, making it pass a little bit slower. That way they avoid the unlucky 61st second and still advance the clocks within a reasonable time.
>
> <http://googleblog.blogspot.de/2011/09/time-technology-and-leaping-seconds.html>
>

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.

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-02-2012, 04:31 PM
Richard Shaw
 
Default Leap Second

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Michael Cronenworth <mike@cchtml.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I recommend that anyone not familiar with the term "leap second" check
> out all of their Linux systems. Most likely a piece of software is
> running in an infinite loop due to the added second on July 1st. Your
> system may also appear to be running normally but double-check your
> system load to make sure it is less than 1.00. I had several affected
> systems so Fedora was not ready (and I didn't bother to ready my systems).

Yup, My F14 Mythtv box (waiting on Mythtv for EL-6 before "upgrading")
was unusable and had to be rebooted. I also walked into my office at
home to find the whole room about 10 degrees hotter than the rest of
the house thanks to this problem.

Richard
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 07-02-2012, 04:33 PM
Les Mikesell
 
Default leap second

On Mon, Jul 2, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Stephen Harris <lists@spuddy.org> 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 to simulate a leap second ahead of
>> the real occurrence?
>
> The kernel bug is a race condition; simulations may not have detected
> it.
>

The java one seemed to be a pretty sure thing. Was this just openjdk
or was the current Oracle version affected too?

--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@gmail.com
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 07-02-2012, 04:35 PM
Martin Airs
 
Default Leap Second

On Monday 02 Jul 2012 10:25:39 Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I recommend that anyone not familiar with the term "leap second" check
> out all of their Linux systems. Most likely a piece of software is
> running in an infinite loop due to the added second on July 1st. Your
> system may also appear to be running normally but double-check your
> system load to make sure it is less than 1.00. I had several affected
> systems so Fedora was not ready (and I didn't bother to ready my systems).
>
> If you have high system load there are two solutions:
> 1. Reboot, or...
> 2. Manually set the date with "date". Ex: "date 07021025" for July 2nd,
> 10:25 AM.
>
> FYI,
> Michael

mysqld went haywire for me, a reboot fixed it tho

Martin--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
 
Old 07-02-2012, 04:37 PM
Frank Cox
 
Default leap second

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 nothing but a blank
webpage, on all four computers. Closing and re-opening Firefox didn't fix it,
logging out and back in didn't fix it, but rebooting the machines did.

Some google searching indicates to me that there was a problem with Firefox
using a futex that got confused by the leap second, and getting into a loop.

--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com
www.creekfm.com - FIFTY THOUSAND WATTS of POW WOW POWER!
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org