ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov....@gmail.com>
Subject Re: IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis
Date Wed, 09 Aug 2017 11:52:44 GMT
Vladimir, could we check it using benchmarks? Internet contains a lot of
articles about this issue. But do we know if it is still actual for new VMs?

ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:50, Dmitry Pavlov <dpavlov.spb@gmail.com>:

> It seems System.currentTimeMillis () is now in intrinsic list. This means
> on modern JVMs performance penalty will not be so significiant.
>
> Nickolay, could you please raise standalone ticket for U.currentTimeMillis
> () ?
>
> Could you also please check if system.nanoTime / system.currentTimeMs can
> fix https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-5963 When you create a
> PR, I can start several run for Ignite Cache 6 suite to check if issue is
> still reprodacible.
>
> ср, 9 авг. 2017 г. в 14:41, Yakov Zhdanov <yzhdanov@apache.org>:
>
>> Nickolay, IgniteUtils#currentTimeMillis() is some kind of an old heritage.
>> I guess nobody remembers when this method has been introduced. I agree
>> that
>> we can use System.currentTimeMillis(). I would suggest you file a ticket
>> and replace this method calls with System.currentTimeMillis(). Sounds
>> good?
>>
>> As far as reliable elapsed time measurement I agree with you that
>> nanoTime() is better here, but it is definitely not a reason for mentioned
>> failure, since that test is launched in single JVM on a machine that most
>> probably does not do any ntp syncs during the test to make Ignite's
>> timeout
>> machinery fail.
>>
>> Please file a ticket to switch Ignite's timeouts to nanoTime() at some
>> point.
>>
>> --Yakov
>>
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message