hc-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Eric Johnson" <e...@tibco.com>
Subject Re: Performance Issue
Date Tue, 29 Jul 2003 13:07:31 GMT

So far as I know, since Windows 95 it has been possible to measure and 
wait for time intervals of 1ms.  With Windows NT4.0/2000 and later, it 
is even possible to do microseconds.  I think the _really_ coarse timers 
are a hang-over from Windows 3.1 days, and perhaps some of the really 
early hardware supported by Windows 95.  That's just what I recall, though.


Ortwin Gl├╝ck wrote:

> Eric Johnson wrote:
>> since isStale() calls setSoTimeout(1), since it cannot set it to zero.  
> Is this platform safe actually? Windows has only very corse timers, 
> will it still be around 1ms or will it be 20-30ms?
>> Maybe it is just me, but I can live with a 1ms penalty that 
>> dramatically increases the reliability of the re-used connections.  
> So can I, however for real-time people 1ms equals eternity...
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> commons-httpclient-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: 
> commons-httpclient-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org

View raw message