netcdf-hdf mailing list is no longer active. The list archives are made available for historical reasons.
> At 10:16 AM 4/19/2005, you wrote: > > > Quincey Koziol <koziol@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > > > > I was planning on including a hidden field to disambiguate > > objects that > > > > were created at the same time, so this wouldn't happen. Since there's > > > > no > > > > advantage to using a creation order field instead of using the > > creation time > > > > when determining the n'th object inserted into a group (when > > factoring deleted > > > > objects into the equation), I'm still leaning toward using a time > > instead of an > > > > index for this purpose. Using the time provides the same > > functionality and > > > > adds information as well. > > > > > > > > I'm still somewhat split on the issue however and would welcome > > persuasive > > > > arguments in favor of one mechanism or the other. :-) I'm also > > thinking about > > > > including both fields (creation order and creation time) and allowing > > users to > > > > create an index on either, to suit their particular needs... > > > > > > Quincey, > > > > > > What happens is a machine with an inaccurate time adds a variable to a > > > dataset? > > > > It'll get the "wrong" creation time and inserted in the index > >appropriately, as you'd expect. I don't think this is a major problem > >though, > >because I don't think that most files will get edited on multiple machines in > >a very short timeframe. > > This will happen in parallel computing systems. Even cluster nodes can be > off from each other a few seconds. And then the Grid computing will > make it even worse as machines will be in different time zones and bigger > time latency. Actually, I don't think it'll be a problem in parallel systems, because only one processor will be writing the metadata to the file and the metadata will reflect that machine's time settings. Quincey