Win XP Intel Core(2) T5500 1.66GHz
System.nanoTime took : 2064849583ns
System.currentTimeMillis took : 62748478ns
java version "1.5.0_13"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_13-b05)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.5.0_13-b05, mixed mode)
On Hudson:
java version "1.5.0_13"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.5.0_13-b05)
Java HotSpot(TM) Server VM (build 1.5.0_13-b05, mixed mode)
-bash-3.00$ uname -a
SunOS hudson.zones.apache.org 5.10 Generic_127112-05 i86pc i386 i86pc
System.nanoTime took : 177830662ns
System.currentTimeMillis took : 199634480ns
-bash-3.00$ java NanoTest
System.nanoTime took : 166059518ns
System.currentTimeMillis took : 223041837ns
-bash-3.00$ java NanoTest
System.nanoTime took : 168053153ns
System.currentTimeMillis took : 204643068ns
-bash-3.00$ java NanoTest
System.nanoTime took : 169219738ns
System.currentTimeMillis took : 207292030ns
Unfortunately the VMS system does not have Java 5 installed...
On 01/02/2008, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My personnal result (Windows XP AMD Athlon XP 2800+):
>
> C:\>java -version
> java version "1.6.0_03"
> Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0_03-b05)
> Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.6.0_03-b05, mixed mode)
>
> System.nanoTime took : 1432396575ns
> System.currentTimeMillis took : 61866802ns
>
> -> currentTimeMillis is 20* quicker !
>
> Nico.
>
>
> 2008/2/1, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >
> > and without stupide copy/paste colorde formatting :
> >
> >
> >
> > public class CurrentTimeMillisVsNanoTime
> > {
> >
> > static int loops = 1000000;
> > /**
> > * @param args
> > */
> > public static void main( String[] args )
> > {
> > long time = System.nanoTime();
> > long t;
> > for ( int i = 0; i < loops; i++ )
> > {
> > t = System.nanoTime();
> > }
> > System.out.println( "System.nanoTime took : " + (
> > System.nanoTime() - time ) + "ns" );
> >
> > time = System.nanoTime();
> > for ( int i = 0; i < loops; i++ )
> > {
> > t = System.currentTimeMillis();
> > }
> > System.out.println( "System.currentTimeMillis took : " + (
> > System.nanoTime() - time ) + "ns" );
> > }
> >
> > }
> >
> >
> >
> > 2008/2/1, nicolas de loof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > >
> > > I didn't commit from my office, but the bench looks like :
> > >
> > > *
> > >
> > > public
> > > **class* CurrentTimeMillisVsNanoTime
> > >
> > > {
> > >
> > > *static* *int* *loops* = 1000000;
> > >
> > > /**
> > >
> > > * [EMAIL PROTECTED] args
> > >
> > > */
> > >
> > > *public* *static* *void* main( String[] args )
> > >
> > > {
> > >
> > > *long* time = System.*nanoTime*();
> > >
> > > *long* t;
> > >
> > > *for* ( *int* i = 0; i < *loops*; i++ )
> > >
> > > {
> > >
> > > t = System.*nanoTime*();
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > System.
> > > *out*.println( "System.nanoTime took : " + (System.*nanoTime*() - time )
> > > + "ns" );
> > >
> > > time = System.*nanoTime*();
> > >
> > > *for* ( *int* i = 0; i < *loops*; i++ )
> > >
> > > {
> > >
> > > t = System.*currentTimeMillis*();
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > System.
> > > *out*.println( "System.currentTimeMillis took : " + (System.*nanoTime*()
> > > - time ) + "ns" );
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2008/2/1, sebb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> > > >
> > > > And I could probably run it on OpenVMS
> > > >
> > > > ;-)
> > > >
> > > > On 01/02/2008, Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Hi Nicolas,
> > > > >
> > > > > if I either find the test code (or you commit it) I can tell you on
> > > > Mac
> > > > > OS X .... :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Siegfried Goeschl
> > > > >
> > > > > nicolas de loof wrote:
> > > > > > on java < 5 backport-util-concurrent is required to provide
> > > > > > System.nanotime()
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I've no idea of the result of such a bench on other JVM /
> > > > > > architectures. I'll try it on some of my corporate servers
> > > > (solaris /
> > > > > > linux ...)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Having two timing modes would be a solution as you proposed.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2008/2/1, Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hi Nicolas,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > a few thoughts
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +) I use dynamic proxies together with JAMon to measure the
> > > > execution
> > > > > > time of method invocations - ns would make a lot of sense here
> > > > > > +) the execution times also depend on you JVM since you are
> > > > using
> > > > > > JRockit
> > > > > > +) and finally it depends how often you start/stop a monitor
> > > > > > +) retrotranslator will fail badly since System.nanotime() was
> > > > > > introduced with Java 1.5
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Maybe the decision can be deferred until creating a monitor -
> > > > the user
> > > > > > decides whether to use ms or ns?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheers,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Siegfried Goeschl
> > > > > >
> > > > > > nicolas de loof wrote:
> > > > > > > Hello,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For commons-monitoring my first intent was to use
> > > > > > System.nanotime() to
> > > > > > > compute code performances. A simple bench [1] demonstrates
> > > > that
> > > > > > > System.currentTimeMillis is FAR quicker to return current
> > > > time
> > > > > > (on my
> > > > > > > windows box [2]) :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > nanoseconds precision may be usefull for profilers, but is
> > > > it
> > > > > > for monitoring
> > > > > > > purpose ?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [1] 10000000 time (System.nanoTime() ) vs
> > > > > > (System.currentTimeMillis()) :
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > D:\projets\apache\trunks-sandbox\monitoring\target>java
> > > > -server -cp
> > > > > > > .\test-classes
> > > > > > >
> > > > org.apache.commons.monitoring.bench.CurrentTimeMillisVsNanoTime
> > > > > > > nanotime took : 4683052742ns
> > > > > > > currentTimeMillis took : 26907938ns
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > [2]
> > > > > > > D:\projets\apache\trunks-sandbox\monitoring\target>java
> > > > -version
> > > > > > > java version "1.6.0"
> > > > > > > Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.6.0-b105)
> > > > > > > BEA JRockit(R) (build
> > > > > > R27.2.0-131-78843-1.6.0-20070320-1457-windows-ia32,
> > > > > > > compiled mode)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
