Tim Peters added the comment:
Steve, I'm afraid sleeping 100ns wouldn't be enough. The more data I collect,
the more bizarre this gets :-(
Across 300 runs I recorded the difference, in nanoseconds, between the "old"
and "new" timestamps. A negative difference is a test failure. I was very
surprised (for one thing) to see how few *distinct* values there were:
-600: 5
-500: 9
-200: 1
-100: 8
0: 13
100: 1
975800: 7
975900: 58
976000: 69
976100: 7
976300: 9
976400: 48
976500: 52
976600: 6
1952400: 1
1952500: 1
1952800: 1
1952900: 3
1953000: 1
---
300
So the vast bulk of the differences were close to a millisecond (1e6
nanoseconds), and a handful at the tail close to 2 milliseconds. Anyone know
the precision of NTFS file creation time? I know the time structure is
_capable_ of 100ns resolution, but the numbers above strongly suggest the
precision is a lot closer to a millisecond.
Anyway, on the failure end, the biggest difference seen was 600 nanoseconds. A
100ns sleep wouldn't cover that ;-)
----------
_______________________________________
Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org>
<http://bugs.python.org/issue19715>
_______________________________________
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
