Vladimir, > There is nothing wrong with U.currentTimeMillis() at the moment.
I think we can't rely on the return value for time measurement. Is it true? Is it OK for you? It very counterintuitive for me as newcomer. 2017-08-09 14:55 GMT+03:00 Vladimir Ozerov <[email protected]>: > You cannot check it with benchmarks, because behavior of this method will > vary between different JVMs, OSes and hardware. It can be different even > with the same OS depending on it's settings. Again - let's just avoid > unnecessary work. There is nothing wrong with U.currentTimeMillis() at the > moment. > > On Wed, Aug 9, 2017 at 2:52 PM, Dmitry Pavlov <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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 <[email protected]>: > > > > > 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 <[email protected]>: > > > > > >> 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 > > >> > > > > > > -- Nikolay Izhikov [email protected]
