Re: Premature wakeup of time.sleep()
- From: Peter Hansen <peter@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2005 17:04:35 -0400
Bengt Richter wrote:
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:33:07 -0400, Peter Hansen <peter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Steve Horsley wrote:
I think the sleep times are quantised to the granularity of the system clock, shich varies from os to os. From memory, windows 95 has a 55mS timer, NT is less (19mS?), Linux and solaris 1mS. All this is from
For the record, the correct value for NT/XP family is about 15.6 ms (possibly exactly 64 per second and thus 15.625ms, but offhand I don't recall, though I'm sure Google does).
What "correct value" are you referring to? The clock chip interrupts, clock chip resolution, or OS scheduling/dispatching?
The resolution of the call to time.time(), basically.
For NT4 at least, I don't know of anything near 15.6 ms ;-)
Apparently my belief that XP was the same as NT is incorrect then. The value is definitely correct for XP (on my machine anyway ;-) ).
-Peter .
- References:
- Premature wakeup of time.sleep()
- From: Erich Schreiber
- Re: Premature wakeup of time.sleep()
- From: Steve Horsley
- Re: Premature wakeup of time.sleep()
- From: Peter Hansen
- Re: Premature wakeup of time.sleep()
- From: Bengt Richter
- Premature wakeup of time.sleep()
- Prev by Date: Re: Windows Python 2.4: Unbuffered flag causes SyntaxError on interactive sessions?
- Next by Date: Re: which is more 'pythonic' / 'better' ?
- Previous by thread: Re: Premature wakeup of time.sleep()
- Next by thread: Re: Premature wakeup of time.sleep()
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
