Rumor has it that [EMAIL PROTECTED] may have mentioned these words: >Quoting Roger Merchberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I really only need between 500 and 1000 samples per second, but as the > > smallest sleep available normally is time.sleep(.01) -- which brings my > > samples/sec to a nice 100; but I need it a little faster. > >Where did you find that out?
Imperical testing -- I put in values smaller than .01, yet never got more than 100 samples per second. ;-) I then googled around and I saw a few other people found the same thing; but with no resolutions. I *can* post some ugly code if necessary... >I just did some experimenting ... I am running ActiveState Python 2.4.1 under >Windows XP / cygwin. I'm running under Linux From Scratch, book 4.0, kernel 2.4.29. [code snippage] >The first test is fairly consistent with time.sleep(0.001) doing what you >expect. The second is a bit puzzling to me, though... Yea, seems to be a bit of weirdness there... Hrm.... Anyway, maybe I'll go snag 2.4.x and see what that does for me... Laterz, Roger "Merch" Merchberger -- Roger "Merch" Merchberger | Anarchy doesn't scale well. -- Me [EMAIL PROTECTED] | SysAdmin, Iceberg Computers _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
