[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       tomcat-user
Subject:    RE: [OT] RE: 80ms delay switching between worker threads
From:       David BalaÅ <david.balazic () comtrade ! com>
Date:       2015-10-31 14:51:22
Message-ID: 4BECF8F2CDD74E4A8127421DB201BA2B58E169E7 () mail ! hermes ! si
[Download RAW message or body]

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:kpreisser@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:chris@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-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@tomcat.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@tomcat.apache.org

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]