Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

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)


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.

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.


> 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".




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: