Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2007 13:52:45 +0100 (BST) From: Jan Grant <jan.grant@bristol.ac.uk> To: deeptech71@gmail.com Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: 64bit timestamp Message-ID: <20070326134452.L69197@tribble.ilrt.bris.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <4606D88E.4080503@gmail.com> References: <200703251900.l2PJ0Z8w058298@lurza.secnetix.de> <4606D88E.4080503@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 25 Mar 2007, deeptech71@gmail.com wrote: > Oliver Fromme wrote: > > Giorgos Keramidas wrote: > > On 2007-03-25 01:36, deeptech71@gmail.com wrote: > >> Oliver Fromme wrote: > >>> FreeBSD's UFS2 already uses 96bit timestamps, where 64 bits are used > >>> for seconds and 32 bits are used for nanoseconds. Is that sufficient > >>> for you? > >> What the hell for? > > > > ``Just because it can.'' > > Good. :] 2x64bit for x64? To measure what? Even at nanosecond resolution, the notion of timestamping an event seems a little arbitrary. Much beyond it and it's not clear exactly what you're "measuring" - or even if there is any physical interpretation. -- jan grant, ISYS, University of Bristol. http://www.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44 (0)117 3317661 http://ioctl.org/jan/ The only certain way to prevent another 9/11 is via universal calendar reform.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070326134452.L69197>