https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56966
Remy Maucherat changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|--- |FIXED
Status|NEW
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56966
--- Comment #11 from Mark Thomas ---
TOMCAT-NEXT.txt root of the repo, master branch.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
-
To unsubscri
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56966
--- Comment #10 from Michael Osipov ---
(In reply to Mark Thomas from comment #9)
> The API changes to implement this mean it needs to wait for a new major
> version. I have added it to the 10.0.x TODO list.
Can you please share the todo list?
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56966
--- Comment #9 from Mark Thomas ---
The API changes to implement this mean it needs to wait for a new major
version. I have added it to the 10.0.x TODO list.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
--
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56966
--- Comment #8 from Mark Thomas ---
The times were consistent on my fairly old (2008) server running Win 2008 R2 at
15/600 regardless with Java 7 Java 8 and Java 9.
On my 2012 OSX laptop the times were consistently ~40μs for Java 7 and 8.
And
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56966
--- Comment #7 from Mark Thomas ---
Hmm. Both methods around 40μs on may newer laptop which would make this change
pretty much zero perofromnace impact.
There are a few too many variables here. H/W, OS, JVM etc. I'm going to do some
wider test
https://bz.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56966
--- Comment #6 from Mark Thomas ---
System.nanoTime() is approximately 40x slower than System.currentTimeMillis().
On my machine the equates to the difference between ~600ns and ~15ns per call.
Duration requires a start and an end time. So tha
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56966
--- Comment #5 from Christopher Schultz ---
(In reply to Konstantin Kolinko from comment #1)
> I see 1ms precision when running on Windows 7. I see 1ms running on Linux.
> The last time when I observed 10ms was Windows XP, but Windows XP is
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56966
--- Comment #4 from Tom Fitzhenry ---
The machine is a virtual machine running on the Windows Azure hypervisor
(similar to Hyper-V, supposedly).
The guest OS runs Windows Server 2012 R2, and reports its hardware as:
Processor: Intel(R
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56966
--- Comment #3 from Christopher Schultz ---
Any other environmental notes? For instance, are you running on bare metal or
in a virtualized environment?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assignee for the bug.
---
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56966
--- Comment #2 from Tom Fitzhenry ---
I observed the 15ms precision on Windows Server 2012 R2, the latest MS server
edition.
Sorry, I should have mentioned that in the description.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are the assi
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56966
Konstantin Kolinko changed:
What|Removed |Added
OS||All
Severity|normal
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56966
Tom Fitzhenry changed:
What|Removed |Added
OS|All |Windows Server 2012
--
You are re
https://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56966
Tom Fitzhenry changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||t...@tom-fitzhenry.me.uk
14 matches
Mail list logo
