Just a note: When most of you say "resolution" what you think about is actually
called "accuracy".
(also see "precision" , here is a good roundup:
http://www.tutelman.com/golf/measure/precision.php )
David Balažic
Software Engineer
www.comtrade.com
> -Original Message-
> From: Konstantin Preißer [mailto:kpreis...@apache.org]
> Sent: 31. October 2015 10:27
> To: Tomcat Users List
> Subject: [OT] RE: 80ms delay switching between worker threads
> Importance: Low
>
> Hi Christopher,
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Christopher Schultz [mailto:ch...@christopherschultz.net]
> > Sent: Saturday, October 31, 2015 3:43 AM
> >
> > What OS are you using? IIRC, the Windows timer has horrible resolution.
> > you can call System.currentTimeNanos all you want, but you won't get
> > anything meaningful lower than some threshold regardless of the actual
> > least significant digits coming back from those calls.
>
> While that may have been true in ancient versions like XP and Vista, at least
> starting with Win7 QueryPerformanceCounter() uses the processor's TSC [1]
> (where Vista used the HPET if available) so you should have a very high
> resolution here. E.g. running the following Java program:
>
> int[] iterations = { 100, 120, 150, 250 };
>
> for (int i = 0; i < iterations.length; i++) {
> for (int j = 0; j < 3; j++) {
> long currentTime = System.nanoTime();
> double startValue = 1000;
> for (int z = 0; z < iterations[i]; z++) {
> startValue = Math.pow(startValue, 0.99);
> }
> long difference = System.nanoTime() - currentTime;
> System.out.println(iterations[i] + " pow iterations ms took " +
> (difference / 1000L) + " µs");
> }
> }
>
> prints on my system something like:
>
> 100 pow iterations ms took 25 µs
> 100 pow iterations ms took 7 µs
> 100 pow iterations ms took 7 µs
> 120 pow iterations ms took 8 µs
> 120 pow iterations ms took 9 µs
> 120 pow iterations ms took 8 µs
> 150 pow iterations ms took 11 µs
> 150 pow iterations ms took 10 µs
> 150 pow iterations ms took 13 µs
> 250 pow iterations ms took 18 µs
> 250 pow iterations ms took 17 µs
> 250 pow iterations ms took 17 µs
>
>
> So there should at least be a microsecond resolution. On a C# program using
> Stopwatch I get similar results in the range from 5 to 12 µs.
>
> Note, QueryPerformanceFrequency() [2] can be used to get the frequency
> of the timer which is exposed in .Net through static
> System.Diagnostics.Stopwatch.Frequency field as ticks per second. On my
> system it prints "3323580" so the resolution should be around ~0.3
> microseconds.
>
>
> Regards,
> Konstantin Preißer
>
> [1] https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-
> us/library/windows/desktop/dn553408%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
> [2] https://msdn.microsoft.com/de-
> de/library/windows/desktop/ms644905%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
>
>
> -
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@tomcat.apache.org
