[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21774?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16787039#comment-16787039
]
Andrew Purtell commented on HBASE-21774:
----------------------------------------
The patch looks fine.
I think the javadoc of monotonicTime should reiterate that it is NOT a better
"currentTime", for sake of clarity. Also, I think we would be missing the other
caveat from Hadoop's javadoc:
{quote}
* This function can return a negative value and it must be handled correctly
* by callers. See the documentation of System#nanoTime for caveats.
{quote}
Make these changes and I'd be +1
> do not use currentTimeMillis to measure intervals
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: HBASE-21774
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HBASE-21774
> Project: HBase
> Issue Type: Bug
> Reporter: Sergey Shelukhin
> Assignee: Dmitriy Kuharev
> Priority: Minor
> Attachments: HBASE-21774.master.001.patch,
> HBASE-21774.master.002.patch, HBASE-21774.master.003.patch
>
>
> I've noticed it in a few places in the code...
> currentMillis can go backwards and have other artifacts.
> nanoTime should be used for intervals (see
> [https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/System.html#nanoTime()|https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/lang/System.html#nanoTime()]
> ) unless it's both the case that the calls are frequent and nanoTime will
> result in perf overhead, and also that artifacts from negative intervals and
> such are relatively harmless or possible to work around in the code.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
