Re: 1/1/1970

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

From: werme@zk3.dec.com
Date: 03/18/97-02:46:45 PM Z


From: werme@zk3.dec.com
Message-Id: <9703182046.AA06308@wasted.zk3.dec.com>
Subject: Re: 1/1/1970 
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 97 15:46:45 -0500


   >> If 2106 is too soon, then why not change the format from two 32 bit value
  s
   >> to a single 64 unsigned value.  With a 1970 base, this then ranges out to
   >> around 2554.
   >
   >Interesting idea, though doesn't this burden OS's or filesystems
   >that do not support time resolutions below 1 second ?  Currently
   >they can just plug in the seconds value and set the nanoseconds
   >to zero.  If the entire value is represented as 64 bit nanoseconds
   >then they'll required to do some non-trivial 64 bit arithmetic.

Another possibility (that doesn't even need to be part of NFS V4) is to
store the high two bits of a 34 bit seconds value in the high two bits of
the nanoseconds.  Reassembling the data would be faster than the divide
Lance is suggesting.  Of course, no one would bother to implement it until
the year 2100.  (Which, of course, is *not* a leap year, but that's a topic
for a different forum.)

	-Ric Werme


New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Attachment view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:45:33 AM Z CST