is cygwin lame???

[Michael Scheibler]

We are experiencing a major difference in performance between bash on a real
unix system and on cygwin. I can't imagine that this is a problem of
Windows - it might be a catastrophe in os design, but you can't say that
it's THAT slow.
Now we looked at out network monitoring tools and found this:

.
.
.
.
31384 13:04:10 bash.exe:112 FASTIO_READ Z:\make_classdll.sh SUCCESS Offset:
598 Length: 1
31385 13:04:10 bash.exe:112 FASTIO_CHECK_IF_POSSIBLE Z:\make_classdll.sh
SUCCESS Read: Offset: 599 Length: 1
31386 13:04:10 bash.exe:112 FASTIO_READ Z:\make_classdll.sh SUCCESS Offset:
599 Length: 1
31387 13:04:10 bash.exe:112 FASTIO_CHECK_IF_POSSIBLE Z:\make_classdll.sh
SUCCESS Read: Offset: 600 Length: 1
31388 13:04:10 bash.exe:112 FASTIO_READ Z:\make_classdll.sh SUCCESS Offset:
600 Length: 1
.
.
.
.


There are hundreds of these messages. Does this mean, that bash reads a
shell script one byte after the other?? Z:\ is mapped to a linux raid
machine using Samba. Is this a problem of Cygwin, Samba, or is our
monitoring tool lying?

Michael


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting:         http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/