Claudio Grondi wrote:
> Claudio Grondi wrote:
>
>> Paul Probert wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you saying that you believe the time.sleep(1) call is actually
>>>> blocking for 200 seconds?
>>
>> With such rare occurrence it is very hard to tell what is going on.
>> Usually I put such strange things on a list of curiosities I don't
>> want to know the reason of, because it is in my eyes not worth the
>> effort. Maybe it is even a common problem not yet detected by me,
>> because I have never run this kind of tests for such a long time.
>> Starting today, I can tell you statistically not earlier than in one
>> week, if I have the same problem on my machines (currently I am
>> running only one or two at the same time).
>
>
> Here the intermediate results on my Windows XP machine connected to the
> Internet via very fast digital phone line connection (network
> card/digital-converter box/phone-line):
>
> dt= 1.125 time= 2006_02_24_11h_36m_15s
> dt= 9.20200014114 time= 2006_02_24_12h_46m_49s
> dt= 1.18799996376 time= 2006_02_24_14h_43m_32s
>
> The code used:
> """
> import time
> while True:
> oldtime=time.time()
> time.sleep(1.0)
> newtime=time.time()
> dt=newtime-oldtime
> if dt > 1.1:
> print 'dt=',dt,' time=',time.strftime('%Y_%m_%d_%Hh_%Mm_%Ss')
> """
> running in a command line console parallel to usual daily business on
> the computer.
>
> The yesterday night run (5 hours) gave max. 1.125 sec., so I am
> surprized to see the 9 seconds already after only two hours today.
>
> Claudio
The 9.2 seconds difference was also because of time synchronization
Windows XP does using time.windows.com server - it reported to be done
last time 2006-02-24 at 12:46 o'clock i.e. exactly at the same time
where the 9.2 delay occurred.
Claudio
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
