This (0.002) was tested on Win2000 and Linux 2.4.x --Maarten
Paul Tretter wrote: >On WinXP here I can get as precise as .001 on the wait time. However, it >appears that anything less than that storms the cpu back up to 99 percent. >I suppose that .001 is the lowest number that the wait function can support. >I'm curious why you arrived at .002. Was it the balance point for windows >and linux. I would like others to report on what OS they use and report >their findings. HOW LOW CAN YOU GO? > >dec: .001 > >forever [a: do now/time dec] > >Please let me know what OS you use and how low your dec number can be set at >before your cpu usage goes up. > >Paul Tretter > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Maarten Koopmans" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Sunday, February 08, 2004 4:13 AM >Subject: [REBOL] Re: forever loops and cpu usage > > > > >>What I found (two years ago) was 2-3 ms. Of course, things may have >>changed, both REBOL- and OS-wise. So let me know if you find different >>results. >> >>--Maarten >> >>Graham Chiu wrote: >> >> >> >>>Maarten Koopmans wrote.. apparently on 8-Feb-2004/8:49:54+1:00 >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>In a multitasking environment, you take what you can get. So a forever >>>>loop tries to eat up the cpu. >>>>Inserting a wait 0.002 (I found the number by experiment on Win/Lin two >>>>years ago) behaviour is normal. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>Good to know. I'm using wait 0.2 for REBOLml when reindexing and it >>> >>> >allows other tasks to work well. But I should try this value as well... > > >>>-- >>>Graham Chiu >>>http://www.compkarori.com/cerebrus >>> >>> >>> >>> >>-- >>To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject. >> >> >> > > >--- >Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. >Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). >Version: 6.0.577 / Virus Database: 366 - Release Date: 2/3/2004 > > > -- To unsubscribe from this list, just send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe as the subject.
