RE: Mcsec in Timestamp, is it possible

[bmorris@xxxxxxxxxx]

>Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 14:19:14 -0500
>From: "Urbanek, Marty" <Marty_Urbanek@stercomm.com>
>
>I have no experience with this, but I just saw a URL for that today:
>
>http://as400.rochester.ibm.com/developer/porting/example25.html
>

That site provides a way to get a timestamp that's unique, but it
doesn't promise that the microseconds will be valid, just that
they'll be different from the previous value obtained.

As far as I know, there's no way to get an accurate microseconds
measurement.

The best way to find out how long something takes is to do the
<something> enough times in a row so the whole run takes several
seconds, and then divide the result by the number of iterations.

Anything that returns 6-digit microseconds should be carefully
tested to make sure it's returning meaningful data in the last
3 digits, before using the value as a measurement.  (Normally,
having accurate microseconds in a timestamp isn't as important
as having unique timestamps.)

Ah, I just read Bruce's post about the resolution being better
in V4R3.  Maybe these functions that return data in the last
3 digits are giving better values now.

Barbara Morris


+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---