[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: ntpsec as server questions




On 12/6/23 12:55, Greg Wooledge wrote:
On Wed, Dec 06, 2023 at 05:40:00PM -0000, Curt wrote:
  POSIX format specification

  The POSIX time zone format is the traditionally used format for AIX systems and
  provides a slight performance advantage over the Olson time zone format.
  Example of a POSIX format is EST5EDT.

  The advantage of POSIX is that you can easily and explicitly specify the time
  zone and daylight saving time (DST) details manually, however you wish. The
  performance of applications that call time functions will be faster than using
  Olson specification. And whenever a nation's government decides to change its
  DST rules, the POSIX format is simpler because we can simply change the
  variable definition. There is no need to install any new patch to update time
  database files, as Olson requires.

Does this apply to "us?"

https://developer.ibm.com/articles/au-aix-posix/
This does *not* describe how Debian's EST5EDT, and similarly named
zones, work.  Debian's time zones use a database of DST transition
periods -- all of them, even EST5EDT.  It's just a different set of
transitions than America/New_York uses.

Also, you snipped the rest of that section:

   The disadvantage of this approach is that it cannot track the history
   of timezone-related changes and it is not easy to read as it looks
   cryptic. When a government changes the rules and you update your time
   zone (TZ) variable, it is assumed to be the same DST rule for all
   years past and future.

That's a fairly important paragraph.

Applying the same rules to a timestamp in 2023 and a timestamp in 2006
may give incorrect results, as the DST rules in the US changed in 2007.
That's why the method described by this AIX manual is no longer in
common use.

TZ=POSIX;date
Wed Dec  6 18:00:38 POSIX 2023

TZ=America/New_York;date
Wed Dec  6 13:00:21 EST 2023

TZ=EST5DST;date
Wed Dec  6 13:01:10 EST 2023

What is the problem?

--
It's not easy to be me


Reply to: