ok, in the mean while please have another look at https://reviews.apache.org/r/12849/ please?
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Chiradeep Vittal <chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: > I'd say the test needs to be changed to allow for a negative skew. > > On 8/7/13 2:05 AM, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>I under-kinda-stand, >> >>Does this mean I should live with the whole build failing for a while >>once in a while? Meaning should I change this test and submit a patch >>or is there some windows or java setting I should look at? >> >>On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Chiradeep Vittal >><chiradeep.vit...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> Some insight here >>> http://www.javatuning.com/why-is-thread-sleep-inherently-inaccurate/ >>> >>> >>> On 8/6/13 8:16 AM, "Daan Hoogland" <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>>H, >>>> >>>>I just had a time skew that seems impossible: >>>> >>>>if in the folowing test the sleep is 1000 it reports a failure saying >>>>the duration was 999. now I see at least some clock ticks around it so >>>>whats heppening? An overeager optimizer, maybe? I had to set it to >>>>1001 to make it work. This is not new code, it has been there since >>>>jan 24! So i ran it a few times. >>>> >>>>public class TestProfiler extends Log4jEnabledTestCase { >>>> protected final static Logger s_logger = >>>>Logger.getLogger(TestProfiler.class); >>>> >>>> @Test >>>> public void testProfiler() { >>>> s_logger.info("testProfiler() started"); >>>> >>>> Profiler pf = new Profiler(); >>>> pf.start(); >>>> try { >>>> Thread.sleep(1001); >>>> } catch (InterruptedException e) { >>>> } >>>> pf.stop(); >>>> >>>> s_logger.info("Duration : " + pf.getDuration()); >>>> >>>> Assert.assertTrue(pf.getDuration() >= 1000); >>>> >>>> s_logger.info("testProfiler() stopped"); >>>> } >>>>} >>>> >>>>any clue welcome, >>>>Daan >>> >
