A couple of the comments to the article suggest using 64-bit numbers, which is exactly the right solution. 2^64 nanoseconds=584.55 years - overflow is implausible for any realistic use case. Even pathological cases will struggle to induce wraparound at a human timescale.

(People will probably moan at the idea of restarting the process periodically rather than fixing the issue properly, but when the period would be something like 50 years I don't think it's actually a problem.)

▲

thaumasiotes 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

> but when the period would be something like 50 years I don't think it's actually a problem

I think you have that backwards. If something needs to be done every week, it will get done every week. That's not a problem.

If something needs to be done every fifty years, you'll be lucky if it happens once.

▲

tom_ 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

My parting shot was slightly tongue in cheek, apologies. Fifty years is a long time. The process, whatever it is, will have been replaced or otherwise become irrelevant long before the period is up. 64 bits will be sufficient.

	▲	gpderetta 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		At some point a random bitflip becomes more likely than the counter overflowing.

▲

reincarnate0x14 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I agree with that sentiment in general but even though I've seen systems in continuous operation for 15 years, I've never seen anything make it to 20. I wouldn't write something with the external expectation it never made it that far, but in practical terms, that's probably about as safe as it gets. Even like embedded medical devices expect to get restarted every now and again.

Just as an example the Voyager computers have been restarted and that's been almost 60 years.

▲

ale42 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> using 64-bit numbers, which is exactly the right solution

On a 64-bit platform, sure. When you're working on ring buffers with an 8-bit microcontroller, using 64-bit numbers would be such an overhead that nobody would even think of it.