Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:41:53 -0400 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Cc: michael.scheibler@onevision.de Subject: Re: is cygwin lame??? Message-ID: <20010725104153.B6484@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com, michael.scheibler@onevision.de References: <034601c11505$0a368710$6d07a8c0@miro> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.11i In-Reply-To: <034601c11505$0a368710$6d07a8c0@miro>; from michael.scheibler@onevision.de on Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 02:26:32PM +0200 On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 02:26:32PM +0200, Michael Scheibler wrote: >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 Thanks for the bug report. You've properly hit on the problem. Cygwin is indeed lame or as we like to call it "ambulatorally challenged". Sorry for the inconvenience. cgf -- 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/