Claudio Grondi wrote: > Paul Probert wrote: > >> Peter Hansen wrote: >> >>> Are you saying that you believe the time.sleep(1) call is actually >>> blocking for 200 seconds? > With such rare occurrence it is very hard to tell what is going on. > Usually I put such strange things on a list of curiosities I don't want > to know the reason of, because it is in my eyes not worth the effort. > Maybe it is even a common problem not yet detected by me, because I have > never run this kind of tests for such a long time. > Starting today, I can tell you statistically not earlier than in one > week, if I have the same problem on my machines (currently I am running > only one or two at the same time).
Here the intermediate results on my Windows XP machine connected to the Internet via very fast digital phone line connection (network card/digital-converter box/phone-line): dt= 1.125 time= 2006_02_24_11h_36m_15s dt= 9.20200014114 time= 2006_02_24_12h_46m_49s dt= 1.18799996376 time= 2006_02_24_14h_43m_32s The code used: """ import time while True: oldtime=time.time() time.sleep(1.0) newtime=time.time() dt=newtime-oldtime if dt > 1.1: print 'dt=',dt,' time=',time.strftime('%Y_%m_%d_%Hh_%Mm_%Ss') """ running in a command line console parallel to usual daily business on the computer. The yesterday night run (5 hours) gave max. 1.125 sec., so I am surprized to see the 9 seconds already after only two hours today. Claudio -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list