Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

2038: Only 21 years away

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 333 posts

Re: 2038: Only 21 years away

#51

Post by dboreham »

simias wrote: post #17
_uhtu wrote: post #5

Is there a reason why they decided to store time as seconds from 1970? In a 32-bit integer nonetheless. It seems like basic logic would have lead the original designers to make it at least 64 bits so that you'd never overflow it (with a 64 bit time we'd be good til the year 292277026596). 64 bits would also allow you to also cover the entirety of history, all the way back to 13.7 billion years ago when the Universe c…

When you're mainly working with 32bit CPUs (or less) and the year of overflow is almost 50 years in the future I can forgive them for considering it was good enough at the time. Maybe they thought that by the time it was going to be an issue somebody else would've replaced it? It's in the same bag as IPv4 "only" supporting a few billion addresses, hindsight is always 20/20... Moreover even 64bit timestamps wouldn't b…

IPv4 as designed didn't support anything like a few billion addresses. We had to invent CIDR to get there, years later.

Re: 2038: Only 21 years away

#52

Post by scandox »

gbrown_ wrote: post #31
archgrove wrote: post #3

This is (serious) a part of my retirement planning. I'll be mid-50s when this hits, and have enough low level system knowledge to be dangerous. In about 15 years, I'll start spinning up my epochalypse consultancy, and I'm expecting a reasonable return on investment in verifying systems as 2038 compliant.

I'm really curious about the kind of software things like pacemakers run and potential implications from 32-bit time expiring.

Research material for you: http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2010/transparent-me...

Re: 2038: Only 21 years away

#54

Post by keithlfrost »

antirez wrote: post #24

Using a 64 bit timestamp will only move the problem 292 million years forward, so probably the best solution is to use a variable length field.

On the other hand, using a 64 bit integer to count seconds moves the problem 292 billion years forward, and we can probably let the Omega Point handle it from there.

Re: 2038: Only 21 years away

#55

Post by TheGRS »

AlexC04 wrote: post #44
archgrove wrote: post #3

This is (serious) a part of my retirement planning. I'll be mid-50s when this hits, and have enough low level system knowledge to be dangerous. In about 15 years, I'll start spinning up my epochalypse consultancy, and I'm expecting a reasonable return on investment in verifying systems as 2038 compliant.

I hope you've trademarked the term "epochalypse" because it is really catchy! I love it.

Maybe he can title himself an epochalist.

Re: 2038: Only 21 years away

#56

Post by scandox »

archgrove wrote: post #3

This is (serious) a part of my retirement planning. I'll be mid-50s when this hits, and have enough low level system knowledge to be dangerous. In about 15 years, I'll start spinning up my epochalypse consultancy, and I'm expecting a reasonable return on investment in verifying systems as 2038 compliant.

Start right now. You'll have the SEO and the thought-leadership circuit all stitched up well in advance.

Re: 2038: Only 21 years away

#57

Post by pkulak »

Is 2038 the end of a signed int? If so, can't we just make it unsigned and buy ourselves another 70 years or so? I don't know how much of an issue not being able to represent time before 1970 is, but for timestamps that doesn't seem like it would be an issue.

Re: 2038: Only 21 years away

#58

Post by ejcx »

swalsh wrote: post #47
antirez wrote: post #24

Using a 64 bit timestamp will only move the problem 292 million years forward, so probably the best solution is to use a variable length field.

Think about how much entropy will build up in systems over 292 million years. Systems thousands of years old will be underneath newer systems hundreds of years old. The AI's will be scrambling to fix the problem.

If humans are still alive 292million years in the future, seems like that's our best time to take control back from our sentient AI overlords.

Re: 2038: Only 21 years away

#59

Post by Aardwolf »

iamgopal wrote: post #28

Call me stupid, but I think computing will be much different to worry about this. ( single chip os or iot to the level that each hardware component is separate, or something else...)

21 years ago was 1996.

How different is computing now compared to 1996?

Do you consider 2017 vs 2038 to probably have more difference or less difference than 1996 vs 2017?

If more difference, do you expect technology to accelerate faster in the next 21 years than the last 21 years, and why?

Re: 2038: Only 21 years away

#60

Post by swalsh »

iamgopal wrote: post #28

Call me stupid, but I think computing will be much different to worry about this. ( single chip os or iot to the level that each hardware component is separate, or something else...)

Not a chance. Even if we completely redesign computer architecture in the next 21 years. Old legacy systems that "still work" will continue hanging around doing the important stuff. There are mainframe systems in insurance companies still running code from the 1970's.
Post reply on HN