This is the mail archive of the mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: Win2k and cygwin memory leak

> And totally undoable.

?????????? Didn't I just read a few sentences earlier:

> Apache, OTOH, is a SERVER, designed and implement to run continually in
> the background.

Forgive me if I'm mistaken, but isn't there a **CYGWIN DAEMON** project
currently in the works????????????

Seems to little ole *clueless* me, such such issues could be addressed in
that project. Seems like it'd be a heck of lot more congenial and
to engage in creative "what if" scenario's about future developmemt
than knee jerk character attacks. (Of course I realize that's more of a
cygwin-app discussion - but it would certainly work well to placate us
types in the meantime.)

I've made no demands, asked for no status, and set no deadlines. Just still
*dumbfounded* at the "go tell it on the Microsoft" posturing.


"Andrew DeFaria" <> on 08/07/2003 11:28:18 PM

Sent by:

cc:     (bcc: Brian Kelly/WTC1/Empire)

Subject:    Re: Win2k and cygwin memory leak wrote:

> Well, I can't feel too guilty about chiming "me too" - cause it
> already brought forth a VERY useful and *productive* response:
> Unlike the ... uh-hem ... *posts* of some other folks ....

This seems to me to be just a bandaid for a specific OS (not even one
that you're running).

> I will say this - anything that ends in "contact Microsoft" is about
> as useful as a 300 baud modem on a Pentium 4. No - the modem is
> definitely more useful.

Hey it's tough, but what else can you do really if the OS hangs on to
the memory? Bandaids like tweaking ini files and RAMpage are just that -

> All I want to do, is use Cygwin to solve some of my problems. So I'm
> given a naked Compaq box with dual processors, 2 gigs of ram, and W2K
> Server w SP3. ( I am not part of the "NT Team" at work - talking to
> them is a lot like talking to Microsoft. ) I set up and run nothing
> but cygwin and cygwin installed apps. And then I run it again, and
> again and again and again - and then the box crashes.

Again, why not install Linux?

> And the NT people get all upset cause someone has to find the box in
> the unlabeled server farm and power it down and back up again. Five
> meetings full of name calling and finger pointing follow.
> Just a slice of my "clueless" life.
> But I digress.
> All I want is for software ( I didn't say *cygwin* - I'm being
> *generic* ) to work as "expected".

It's not "expected" for an application program to cleanup after an OS.

> Crashing servers somehow violate reasonable expectations.

It's not Cygwin that crashes the system - It's Windows.

> There's an awful lot of other software out there that runs 24-7 on the
> same windows that you wish to blame and *it* doesn't bring the box
> down. Non-cygwin Apache comes to mind. I believe it's possible to
> write code that doesn't as cfg put it  "triggers a windows problem"
> Cause it certainly appears to me that others must have encountered the
> same problem, and didn't say "well it's Microsoft's problem".

You admittedly run processes that take up huge amounts of memory and
then exit. It is the responsibility of the OS to free those resources
when the process exits. Windows still has many acknowledged memory leaks
in such situations.

Apache, OTOH, is a SERVER, designed and implement to run continually in
the background.

Why don't you look at your own "cygwin" code and implement it as a deamon?

> Now I'm not telling anyone what to do, or not to do. All I know is the
> Microsoft installed base probably numbers in the *billions* out there.
> And even if MS *were* to fix the problem, what are the odds that this
> fix would find it's way onto even a sizable fraction of that base??

Depends on how many people insist and running 5 year old OSes (like Win

> In spite of the bloated bombastic verbage often spewing forth from
> this forum, a *cygwin* fix is
> definitely the path of least resistance.

And totally undoable. How many times must people tell you, when the
application exits there is no possible way that Cygwin can do anything
about it. Cygwin is not in the "business" like RAMPage.

> Believe it or not. Someone will fix this someday. I have "faith". It
> won't be me, and it won't be someone in Redmond Washington. I have a
> work-around so I'm currently satisfied. I'll be patient.
> Cluelessly yours,
> BK
> ( PS - I HATE Windows - put I get paid 'quite well' to work on it, and
> given the current state of the economy - I think I'll keep working on
> it ..... )

I don't HATE Windows - I just understand it's limintation (and
strengths). Cygwin makes Windows a lot more bearable and usable for me.

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

"WellChoice, Inc." made the following
 annotations on 08/08/2003 09:03:36 AM
Attention!  This electronic message contains information that may be legally
confidential and/or privileged.  The information is intended solely for the
individual or entity named above and access by anyone else is unauthorized.
If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution,
or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful.
If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply
immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and
delete it. Release/Disclosure Statement

Unsubscribe info:
Problem reports:

Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]