|
North American Network Operators Group Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical RE: Silly season
> Greg A. Woods > Sent: Thursday, December 23, 1999 11:28 AM > > [ On Wednesday, December 22, 1999 at 23:58:21 (-0500), Andrew > Brown wrote: ] > > Subject: Re: Silly season > > > > it would be better, imho, to go to a 64 bit signed time_t, but that > > would be a major flag day. > > "would be"!?!?! :-) > > No, it *WILL* be an important day, but it will happen on a per-system > basis (and perhaps per-protocol basis if indeed there are any network > protocols carrying time_t or similar values). Those of us implementing 64-bit OS (Alpha, Merced, etc) get this as part of the package. However, this does NOT correct databases that already have a 32-bit time_t (which shouldn't be the case, but is a good probability [lazy coders]). Ergo, even the fact that 90% of the computers will be 64-bit safe by 2038 won't save us. Stored data will have to be checked and the conversion will obsolete many backup tapes. What I am saying is that there is still a data-migration issue, just like Y2K. The problem is only transitive in protocols and running code, there is not much inertia there, but the real problem is data in long-term storage, where inertia is the name of the game.
|