An explanation for the small difference is that write buffering occurs also on other levels in modern hardware/operating systems: - filesystems buffer data before writing chunks to the disk - the disk itself buffers in memory before actually persisting the data. This may not be the case for all hardware/OS combinations. For example I would expect larger differences on PDAs.
Wolf > Ceki Gülcü wrote: > > At 10:54 05.06.2002 +0200, zze-pegase balg011 Bancharel Fabien > DvSI/SIReS/GRE wrote: > > > // join the last created thread. It is likely to be the last > > > // thread to finish, although that is not certain. We wait another > > > // 5 secs just in case. > > > io.join(); > > > Thread.currentThread().sleep(5000); > > > >YES, this is REALLY not certain that the last started thread will be the > >last to finish. > >And as the whole process for one test must be about 40 secondes, > >it is not sure at all that waiting 5 secondes is sufficient to be sure > >that the next test is not started while the current one is not finished. > > Good point. > > >As the buffered IO test is the last one, > >it can suffer most of this risk. > > More of the same point but still a good point. > > >Maybe the results would be different by starting with the Buffered IO test. > > > >Anyway, even if the gain doesn't appear obvious here, > >the buffered IO saves lot of CPU time. > > Buffered IO reducing CPU load is an interesting hypothesis. > > I modified IO.java so that it now has two threads logging and another > thread doing some CPU intensive operation. > [snip] -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
