ok, in the mean while please have another look at
https://reviews.apache.org/r/12849/ please?
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 8:01 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
wrote:
> I'd say the test needs to be changed to allow for a negative skew.
>
> On 8/7/13 2:05 AM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote:
>
>>I under-kinda-stand,
>>
>>D
I'd say the test needs to be changed to allow for a negative skew.
On 8/7/13 2:05 AM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote:
>I under-kinda-stand,
>
>Does this mean I should live with the whole build failing for a while
>once in a while? Meaning should I change this test and submit a patch
>or is there some win
I under-kinda-stand,
Does this mean I should live with the whole build failing for a while
once in a while? Meaning should I change this test and submit a patch
or is there some windows or java setting I should look at?
On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 8:19 PM, Chiradeep Vittal
wrote:
> Some insight here
Some insight here
http://www.javatuning.com/why-is-thread-sleep-inherently-inaccurate/
On 8/6/13 8:16 AM, "Daan Hoogland" wrote:
>H,
>
>I just had a time skew that seems impossible:
>
>if in the folowing test the sleep is 1000 it reports a failure saying
>the duration was 999. now I see at leas
H,
I just had a time skew that seems impossible:
if in the folowing test the sleep is 1000 it reports a failure saying
the duration was 999. now I see at least some clock ticks around it so
whats heppening? An overeager optimizer, maybe? I had to set it to
1001 to make it work. This is not new co
