Barry,
I believe that all the UV platforms now return TIME() as a "99999.999"
quantity, this was made uniform across the range sometime in the 10.0
timeframe. Then sometime during 10.1, the TIMEACCURACY configuration
parameter appeared, I'd guess because too many people complained that
they had depended on the integer nature of TIME() on their platform.
As for the ~15ms 'tick' on Windows platforms, I think it's a tiny bit
variable between 15 and 16ms. I wrote a program to check, and it gives
these results on UV10.1.18 / Win2003SP2:-
>MIKE.SMALLEST.TICK
THE.START "31048.042"
NAP.END "31063.666"
Average elapsed time of "NAP 1" is 15.62 milliseconds
Minimum value of "NAP 1" is 15 milliseconds
Maximum value of "NAP 1" is 16 milliseconds
Standard Deviation of "NAP 1" is 0.000 milliseconds
TIME.END "31079.291"
Average difference of "TIME()" is 15.62 milliseconds
Minimum difference of "TIME()" is 15 milliseconds
Maximum difference of "TIME()" is 16 milliseconds
Standard Deviation of "TIME()" is 0.484 milliseconds
>
The results were very, very similar on UV10.0.15, but I have not tried
it on other Windows platforms
Hope this helps
Mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Barry Brevik
> Sent: Saturday, 22 July 2006 10:41
> To: U2-users (E-mail)
> Subject: [U2] [UV] time()
>
> The TIME() function is supposed to return the number of
> seconds since midnight, in whole seconds on unix, but on
> Windows machines it returns a real number implying it is
> accurate to the nearest .001 second.
>
> Of course, it doesn't, but I noticed on my server that it
> rather reliably returns a number rounded to the nearest .015
> or .016, giving about 64 divisions per second.
>
> Back in the old days, the PC's time chip had a periodicity of
> .054 seconds. Does anyone know how Universe manages to tic
> every 16 milliseconds? It seems somewhat dependant on machine
> load. With my head buried in programming, I suppose I might
> have missed common hardware improvements <g>.
>
> My main concern is how reliable is it? In other words, under
> heavy load can you miss a tic? On the old fashioned hardware
> driven interrupt model, you would never miss a tic no matter
> what the load. If it is reliable, it's too bad we can't write
> interrupt handlers in Universe. That would be cool.
>
> Barry Brevik
> -------
> u2-users mailing list
> u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
> To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
>
The information contained in this Internet Email message is intended
for the addressee only and may contain privileged information, but not
necessarily the official views or opinions of the New Zealand Defence Force.
If you are not the intended recipient you must not use, disclose, copy or
distribute this message or the information in it.
If you have received this message in error, please Email or telephone
the sender immediately.
-------
u2-users mailing list
u2-users@listserver.u2ug.org
To unsubscribe please visit http://listserver.u2ug.org/
