Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-jmeter-user-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 90355 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2010 03:43:58 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 19 Nov 2010 03:43:58 -0000 Received: (qmail 94105 invoked by uid 500); 19 Nov 2010 03:44:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-jmeter-user-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 93853 invoked by uid 500); 19 Nov 2010 03:44:28 -0000 Mailing-List: contact jmeter-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "JMeter Users List" Reply-To: "JMeter Users List" Delivered-To: mailing list jmeter-user@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 93845 invoked by uid 99); 19 Nov 2010 03:44:28 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 03:44:28 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of andrejvanderzee@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.172 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.214.172] (HELO mail-iw0-f172.google.com) (209.85.214.172) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 03:44:20 +0000 Received: by iwn40 with SMTP id 40so4476368iwn.31 for ; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:43:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=1nRYhltAgycc7GiqZDJKAs96HsyK12ZLFH5fyC3geOU=; b=bkz08xZJEAnQK1Up82LNS8bxgnm8NljW5Na7fsR12/OqpveQu5pKogXc6X7IKzi6WB FI4IIh/eaNQaumfznVZ2NxHIoxePJnl6VDmi/DkzLAQYhjHZdBK3TvtbhWOg9uotvmMu 7aoSepw/wXNZKDpKfsm0CEzrcyVaxPYLS8sZE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=EunjRS8Pxv9XWDOPVl3oUOKIV0qVINIKi4i3FJ5s4k+e/vdgud2thR/Ta5XvbFcJKV Xp5ACx8igbSFKQesN8tzxZ+iou2zOW8wX0eATi2+rYo9MBI4n0FLbfuc70IF9QKxjiPS jhwhes2n7ON9FZwpb2zATIWRUNhkRvwi3yfvw= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.171.70 with SMTP id i6mr1188772icz.156.1290138239061; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:43:59 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.231.20.65 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Nov 2010 19:43:59 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 12:43:59 +0900 Message-ID: Subject: Re: timestamps out of sync with system clock From: Andrej van der Zee To: JMeter Users List Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Hi, > > I tried a simple program comparing systemTime and nanoTime, and found > that it does seem to drift (WinXP/Java1.6). This is not the impression > one gets from the Javadoc... > > Maybe the base times need to be regenerated more frequently - perhaps > even every sample, leaving the nanotime just for elapsed time. Maybe > even support just systemTime. (Might be best to make the changed > implementation(s) optional.) I would prefer an option that gets the time ether from currentTimeMillis() or from nanoTime(). On windows, the latter gets its value from the QueryPerformanceCounter() API which causes the drift from the system-clock. Please keep me (us) informed! Cheers, Andrej --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: jmeter-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: jmeter-user-help@jakarta.apache.org