Re: Antw: Re: RE24 testing call (2.4.47) LMDB RE0.9 testing call (0.9.23)

["Ulrich Windl" <Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>]

>>> Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com> schrieb am 18.12.2018 um 09:55 in Nachricht
<970a00c2-d5ba-d562-89e3-94bf35d70d9e@symas.com>:
> Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>>>> "A. Schulze" <sca@andreasschulze.de> schrieb am 17.12.2018 um 22:19 in
>> Nachricht <77e04ce8-0362-c873-c751-98bc9ea58c73@andreasschulze.de>:
>> 
>>>
>>> Am 16.12.18 um 23:32 schrieb Howard Chu:
>>>>>>>>>> ./data/regressions/its8752/its8752 failed (exit 1)
>>>>
>>>> I believe this is simply due to too short a sleep between steps. It happens 
>>> quite
>>>> often on slower machines.
>>>
>>> are there plans to to relax the timings or should I simple ignore that fail?
>>> "it may happen that 'make its' pass on other computers" don't really satisfy 
> 
>>> me :-)
>> 
>> When waiting for an event (other than passing of time) sleep is always the 
> wrong solution
> 
> False.
> 
>>  (iven if seemingly industry-standard work-around for all kinds of bugs): 
> It's either too long, wasting time, or too short, failing to fulfill ist 
> purpose.
> 
> sleep is used because it is a low cost operation on the computer. Anything 
> more active than
> that will use more system resources, which are obviously already scarce on a 
> slower system.
> i.e., active polling on a slow machine will only make things slower.

I agree that busy waiting is worse than sleeping.

> 
> -- 
>   -- Howard Chu
>   CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com 
>   Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ 
>   Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/