time.sleep(1) sometimes runs for 200 seconds under windows

[Claudio Grondi]

Claudio Grondi wrote:
> Claudio Grondi wrote:
> 
>> Paul Probert wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Hansen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Are you saying that you believe the time.sleep(1) call is actually 
>>>> blocking for 200 seconds?
>>
>> With such rare occurrence it is very hard to tell what is going on. 
>> Usually I put such strange things on a list of curiosities I don't 
>> want to know the reason of, because it is in my eyes not worth the 
>> effort. Maybe it is even a common problem not yet detected by me, 
>> because I have never run this kind of tests for such a long time.
>> Starting today, I can tell you statistically not earlier than in one 
>> week, if I have the same problem on my machines (currently I am 
>> running only one or two at the same time).
> 
> 
> Here the intermediate results on my Windows XP machine connected to the 
> Internet via very fast digital phone line connection (network 
> card/digital-converter box/phone-line):
> 
> dt= 1.125          time= 2006_02_24_11h_36m_15s
> dt= 9.20200014114  time= 2006_02_24_12h_46m_49s
> dt= 1.18799996376  time= 2006_02_24_14h_43m_32s
> 
> The code used:
> """
> import time
> while True:
>   oldtime=time.time()
>   time.sleep(1.0)
>   newtime=time.time()
>   dt=newtime-oldtime
>   if dt > 1.1:
>     print 'dt=',dt,' time=',time.strftime('%Y_%m_%d_%Hh_%Mm_%Ss')
> """
> running in a command line console parallel to usual daily business on 
> the computer.
> 
> The yesterday night run (5 hours) gave max. 1.125 sec., so I am 
> surprized to see the 9 seconds already after only two hours today.
> 
> Claudio

The 9.2 seconds difference was also because of time synchronization 
Windows XP does using time.windows.com server - it reported to be done 
last time 2006-02-24 at 12:46 o'clock i.e. exactly at the same time 
where the 9.2 delay occurred.

Claudio