<div dir="auto">Crystal clear guys. Thank you so much</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204)"><br>It is not strictly monotonic, see the note: <br>
<a href="https://erlang.org/doc/man/erlang.html#monotonic_time-0" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://erlang.org/doc/man/erlang.html#monotonic_time-0</a><br>
<br>
Also see this if you need ordered events:<br>
<a href="https://erlang.org/doc/apps/erts/time_correction.html#Dos_and_Donts_Determine_Order_of_Events_With_Time_of_the_Event" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://erlang.org/doc/apps/erts/time_correction.html#Dos_and_Donts_Determine_Order_of_Events_With_Time_of_the_Event</a><br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
<br>
On 07/09/2021 08:27, Frank Muller wrote:<br>
> Hi Everyone<br>
> <br>
> Yesterday, a Java developer told me that getting unique timestamps is <br>
> only guaranteed to be possible between COREs on the same CPU. Stated <br>
> otherwise, two processes on two different CPUs could get the same timestamp.<br>
> <br>
> I’m now wondering if calls to “erlang:system_time/1” are strictly <br>
> monotonic <br>
> (<a href="https://erlang.org/doc/apps/erts/time_correction.html#strictly-monotonically-increasing" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://erlang.org/doc/apps/erts/time_correction.html#strictly-monotonically-increasing</a>) <br>
> between Erlang processes on the same scheduler, and even between Erlang <br>
> processes on different schedulers.<br>
> <br>
> Can anyone clarify please?<br>
> <br>
> /Frank<br>
<br>
-- <br>
Loïc Hoguin<br>
<a href="https://ninenines.eu" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://ninenines.eu</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>