2008/2/28 Robert F. Scheer <rfscheer at speakeasy.net>:
>
>  On Thu, 2008-02-28 at 07:59 +0200, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>  > 2008/2/28 Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>:
>  > > Robert F. Scheer wrote:
>  > >  > Is this behavior well-known and understood or is there something wrong
>  > >  > with my install?
>  > >
>  > >  This is a very well known issue. Different operating systems have very
>  > >  different minimal timer resolutions. Generally speaking, on Windows and
>  > >  Mac OS the timer resolution is very close to 1ms whereas most Linux
>  > >  kernels have *awful* timer resolutions. I have been told that you can
>  > >  recompile your kernel to fix it but I'm not sure how. The classic
>  > >  benchmark to verify your timer accuracy is to do something like here:
>  > >
>  > >         delay := Delay forMilliseconds: 1.
>  > >         bag := Bag new.
>  > >         1000 timesRepeat:[bag add: [delay wait] timeToRun].
>  > >         bag sortedCounts
>  > >
>  > >  On my box it yields "a SortedCollection(941->1 51->2 8->3)" which means
>  > >  that 94.1% of the delays are true 1msec delays.
>  > >
>  > Here the numbers for HydraVM.
>  >  a SortedCollection(895->2 91->1 14->3)
>
>  How does this compare to standard VM on your OS?
>
Using croquet VM:
 a SortedCollection(951->2 47->1 1->11 1->35)

Using squeak VM:
 a SortedCollection(952->2 48->1)

Surprisingly, but HydraVM seem more precise :)

>  What is your OS?

Window$

-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.