Hallo Im using CentOS 7 Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit Version Thanks Johann Fock Von meinem iPad gesendet
On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:42 PM Johann Fock <Johann.Fock at abas.de> wrote:> > Hallo > Im using CentOS 7 > Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit VersionI got 2 years of work solving the year 2000 issue. In 2038 I will be 79 - maybe I will have to come out of retirement to work on that.
On Tue, 2 Oct 2018 at 13:42, Johann Fock <Johann.Fock at abas.de> wrote:> > Hallo > Im using CentOS 7 > Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit Version >I doubt there is any one answer without a deep audit of all the binaries involved. Most date/clock code in 64 bit should be too big to care, but if you have any 32 bit code, then no idea.> Thanks > Johann Fock > > > Von meinem iPad gesendet > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-- Stephen J Smoogen.
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2018 at 1:42 PM Johann Fock <Johann.Fock at abas.de> wrote: >> >> Hallo >> Im using CentOS 7 >> Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit Version > > I got 2 years of work solving the year 2000 issue. In 2038 I will be > 79 - maybe I will have to come out of retirement to work on that. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >Centos 7 will probably be retired by then, so....I'm not going to worry about it...
On 10/2/18 10:41 AM, Johann Fock wrote:> Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit VersionIf you define the problem as the limitations of system clock based on a 32-bit representation of seconds relative to the epoch, then the answer is "yes."? The Linux kernel uses a 64-bit clock on 64-bit systems. Any given application may store dates in a format of its own choosing, though, so its possible that applications running on CentOS 7 could still have a problem. It's probably easier and faster to simply set the system clock of a test host to the year 2040 and test the system and its applications than it is to ask for opinions, though.
If you do that make sure it's a system you're happy to junk and reinstall. I have painful memories of trying to sort out systems we rolled forward over Y2K. Amongst other things the license manager became convinced we were trying to fiddle things. :-( On 02/10/18 20:07, Gordon Messmer wrote:> On 10/2/18 10:41 AM, Johann Fock wrote: >> Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit Version > > > If you define the problem as the limitations of system clock based on a > 32-bit representation of seconds relative to the epoch, then the answer > is "yes."? The Linux kernel uses a 64-bit clock on 64-bit systems. > > Any given application may store dates in a format of its own choosing, > though, so its possible that applications running on CentOS 7 could > still have a problem. > > It's probably easier and faster to simply set the system clock of a test > host to the year 2040 and test the system and its applications than it > is to ask for opinions, though. > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-- J Martin Rushton MBCS -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 836 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20181002/135813e9/attachment-0001.sig>
On 02/10/2018 18:46, Larry Martell wrote:> I got 2 years of work solving the year 2000 issue.I don't think I've ever said this but I am very envious of all these people who had loads of work due to Y2K or were paid obscene amounts of money to tend systems over new year's eve/day. I was working for an ISP at the time and got none of this. Nothing happened. I don't even recall any special precautions being taken (apart from below). No over time, no obscene amounts of money. Admittedly there was a Y2K audit earlier in the year and so I presume that the consultants who did it got paid some obscene amounts of money. As I recall, they found very little except for one major system that we knew would need updating anyway. And I presume that the contractor who came in to fix the major system was rather well paid too. But no money for me. <sulk> Wrong job, wrong time, wrong place, I guess. Perhaps I should be pleased the actual 99/00 changeover went so smoothly afterall. -- Mark Rousell
On 10/02/2018 12:41 PM, Johann Fock wrote:> Hallo > Im using CentOS 7 > Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit Version >Well, CentOS-7 will be EOL'ed on 30 June 2024 so does it matter? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20181003/ec2d22b4/attachment-0001.sig>
On 10/03/2018 08:49 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:> On 10/02/2018 12:41 PM, Johann Fock wrote: >> Hallo >> Im using CentOS 7 >> Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit Version >> > > Well, CentOS-7 will be EOL'ed on 30 June 2024 so does it matter? >Putting it another way .. the first ever CentOS release happened in 2004 (CentOS 3.1). That is 14 years ago. 2038 is 14 years AFTER CentOS-7 EOLs. Who asks if anything runs on CentOS 3.1 right now? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20181003/971eb049/attachment-0001.sig>
At Wed, 3 Oct 2018 08:49:56 -0500 CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> wrote:> > > From: Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> > To: centos at centos.org > Message-ID: <fd4926e4-5430-7203-8f51-07d6ec4df2de at centos.org> > Subject: Re: [CentOS] 2038 year Problem > References: <8831B7AE-76C1-4CF1-815C-EF52D4C5DE10 at abas.de> > In-Reply-To: <8831B7AE-76C1-4CF1-815C-EF52D4C5DE10 at abas.de> > > On 10/02/2018 12:41 PM, Johann Fock wrote: > > Hallo > > Im using CentOS 7 > > Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit Version > > > > Well, CentOS-7 will be EOL'ed on 30 June 2024 so does it matter? >It is my understanding that even 32-bit kernels since 2.6 (or maybe even 2.4) use 64 bit system clocks. The "2038 year Problem" has been solved for some time...> Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAlu0yQQACgkQTKkMgmrBY7OL3QCdFv/zLj3XKrO/ZmSroy385U3w > 6DgAnRdNhwgVbda9ePu5nqlnWmtCLeKx > =Fq4j > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > MIME-Version: 1.0 > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >-- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software -- Custom Software Services http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services heller at deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services
On Wed, 3 Oct 2018 at 09:50, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:> > On 10/02/2018 12:41 PM, Johann Fock wrote: > > Hallo > > Im using CentOS 7 > > Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit Version > > > > Well, CentOS-7 will be EOL'ed on 30 June 2024 so does it matter?If you have code which is calculating 20 year mortgages and a base CentOS program gives you negative time in 64 bits then it is a problem even if the OS is not going to be around in 2038. [This is where problems were showing up in 1998 and 2008 when 40 year and 30 year contracts/mortgages started getting used in some sort of software and getting weird times.] -- Stephen J Smoogen.
On 10/02/18 13:41, Johann Fock wrote:> Hallo > Im using CentOS 7 > Ist the 2038 year Problem solved in CentOS 7.5 64 bit Version > > Thanks > Johann Fock >Hey Johann, You should submit this question to the Fedora mailing list. CentOS is downstream from Fedora. If the problem is not fixed there it will not be fixed in CentOS, no matter what the release number might be in 2038. -- _ ?v? /(_)\ ^ ^ Mark LaPierre Registered Linux user No #267004 https://linuxcounter.net/ ****