On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 09:12:34PM +0000, Devin Teske wrote: > On Thu, 2011-01-27 at 22:59 +0200, Kostik Belousov wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 27, 2011 at 08:50:48PM +0000, Devin Teske wrote: > > > Probably did something like this: > > > > > > time sh -c '( firefox & ); sleep 10000000' > > > > > > and then pressed Ctrl-C when he felt that firefox was finished loading. > > > The moment Ctrl-C is pressed, time(1) shows how long it ran up until you > > > pressed Ctrl-C. > > > NOTE: Pressing Ctrl-C will not terminate the firefox instance. > > > > You cannot have 1/100 of seconds precision with this method. > > This is why I am asking, seeing < 0.1 seconds difference. > > Not to mention some methodical questions, like whether the caches were > > warmed before the measurement by several runs before the actual > > test. > > > Really? > > $ time sh -c '( firefox & ); sleep 10000000' > ^C > > real 0m5.270s > user 0m0.000s > sys 0m0.005s > > > I'd call that 1/100th of a second precision, wouldn't you? > > HINT: Try using bash instead of csh. (I supposed that) obvious point of my mail is that you cannot reliably measure 1/100 second intervals when human interaction is involved. To make it completely obvious: human has to press CTRL-C, I did not mean reading the numbers from display.
pgp3mBNWKIVxX.pgp
Description: PGP signature
