Re: [nm-wg] NTP rollover

[Dan Gunter <dkgunter@lbl.gov>]

I think the Unix one is signed, or at least setting the high bit breaks 
some stuff that uses -1 as an error, so for all practical purposes it is 
signed. The high bit gives you ~68 years, so since the Unix one starts 
70 years later they roll over at about the same time (2038 vs. 2036).

Well, while I'm here, this is what a time interval with two NTP 
timestamps might look like in XML:

<timeInterval 
xmlns="http://www.ggf.org/namespaces/2004/01/gridNetworkMonitoring";>
<timestamp xsi:type="xsd:unsignedLong">14129747578213518336</timestamp>
<timestamp xsi:type="xsd:unsignedLong">14129747578213552128</timestamp>
</timeInterval>

gorgeous, ain't it ;-)

-Dan


Matthew J Zekauskas wrote:
> isn't 2036 the rollover year for 32 bit unix timestamps
> (seconds since 1970)?  it's close to that if not.
>
> --M
>
> --On Thursday, April 01, 2004 1:02 PM -0700 "Jeff W. Boote" 
> <boote@internet2.edu> wrote:
>
> > Just thought some of you from the call would find this interesting:
> >
> > http://www.eecis.udel.edu/~mills/y2k.html
> >
> > (2036 is the year)
> >
> > jeff

--
  ((    Dan Gunter
   ))   Computer Scientist, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
C|   |  M/S 50B-2239, 1 Cyclotron Road, Berkeley, CA, 94720
 |___|  Phone:510/495-2504 Fax:510/486-6363