From: Lance Kibblewhite (lance@eco.twg.com)
Date: 03/19/97-11:32:14 AM Z
Message-Id: <3.0.32.19970319093213.00907a10@vishnu.eco.twg.com> Date: Wed, 19 Mar 1997 09:32:14 -0800 From: Lance Kibblewhite <lance@eco.twg.com> Subject: Re: 1/1/1970 > >> 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.) Faster for those systems that currently use two 32 bit values (or one for seconds only). But not for those (such as PC's and VMS) which already use a 64-bit value, albeit with a different unit and base. -- Lance
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.2 : 03/04/05-01:45:33 AM Z CST