[kabdib]

We're getting into domains where sub-second precision is pretty important. Logs, for instance; on s aystem handling thousands of messages a second, storing log entries at a resolution of one second gets . . . irritating.

I like Windows NT's system of seconds-since-1600-or-so in increments of 100 nanoseconds. That system has served me well. 100ns isn't crazy to read directly and often from a hardware register (talk to a hardware engineer about latching a rapid counter sometime...), it covers a reasonable range for humans (handles everyone currently alive, for their whole lifetimes and most events they care about) and it fits pretty well with events that occur in multiprocessor systems (I'll be saying something different if I ever work on systems with terahertz clock rates, though).