In the previous email I meant 3ms and not 5ms.
Sorry for the typo.

Bruno

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Bruno de Carvalho<[email protected]> wrote:
> Chris,
>
>
> Thanks for your attention and time.
> It is in fact reasonable but if you increase the sleep time - say,
> like 4ms - you will notice that the individual lifetime average goes
> lower than that those 5ms.
> What I'm trying to understand is why that individual lifetime is
> greater than the global average. It may even be normal, I'm just
> trying to get a proper and convincing explanation - these results will
> go in a thesis, so you see why I need that explanation ;)
>
> Still, those are pretty good results, I can't get any better than an
> average of 40ms with a core 2 duo lappy @ 2Ghz, both windows and
> linux.
>
>
> Best regards,
>  Bruno
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 3:18 PM, Christopher
> Popp<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>>>> Speaking in numbers, executing the test multiple times, I get a constant
>>>> global average of ~1ms lifetime, but individual lifetime measurement
>>>> averages ranges 40~80ms.
>>
>>
>>
>> I downloaded your code and gave it a run...it printed out the following with 
>> the defaults (no sleep).
>>
>>        [SERVER] Binding Server to localhost/127.0.0.1:20002 TCP
>>        [SERVER] Bound to localhost/127.0.0.1:20002
>>        [SERVER] Session created: /127.0.0.1:2598
>>        [CLIENT] Session created: localhost/127.0.0.1:20002
>>        [CLIENT] Session opened: localhost/127.0.0.1:20002
>>        [CLIENT] Connected to server, sending message.
>>        [SERVER] Session opened: /127.0.0.1:2598
>>        [SERVER] Test completed, took 63ms to receive 100 packets (63ms after 
>> sleep discounts).
>>        [SERVER] Calculated average lifetime was 00.63ms.
>>        [SERVER] Individual average lifetime was 3.03ms.
>>        [CLIENT] Session closed: localhost/127.0.0.1:20002
>>        [SERVER] Session closed: /127.0.0.1:2598
>>        [SERVER] Received a total of 5300b
>>
>> Maybe I am missing something, but it seems pretty reasonable to me.  I ran 
>> it under Windows XP on a laptop with a dual core processor.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to