In message <20030907204608.D1404@snowdrop.l8s.co.uk>, David Laight writes:
>> 	why are we using (poorly-designed) pseudorandom number instead of
>> 	sequential number right now?
>
>I suspect because seqential xids get confused when a system reboots
>and immediately starts again the the same point.
>
>date ones are a problem if more that one has to be allocated in the
>same tick.

The obvious solution there is to use a counter that's initialized from 
the clock at reboot time.  We can't reboot in less than a tick...

		--Steve Bellovin, http://www.research.att.com/~smb