is cygwin lame???

John Fortin fortinj@attglobal.net
Wed Jul 25 08:27:00 GMT 2001


Hmmm, I am assuming that based on the subject your purpose was to enflame
the passions of people who use cygwin everyday.
If this was supposed to be a request for information, you style leaves a bit
to be desired.
...Or your manners stopped evolving when you were ten.


John

----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Scheibler" <michael.scheibler@onevision.de>
To: <cygwin@cygwin.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 25, 2001 8:26 AM
Subject: is cygwin lame???


>
> 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/



More information about the Cygwin mailing list