Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 15:44:15 -0700 From: Yitzchak Scott-Thoennes To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: cat /proc/registry/HKEY_PERFOMANCE_DATA/@ hangs Message-ID: <20040713224415.GA816@efn.org> References: <20040713220503.GA2896@efn.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: bs"d X-IsSubscribed: yes On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 06:20:19PM -0400, Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > > Perhaps bufalloc += max(bufalloc, 1000); Gack! I meant min() :) > Sorry, but no. This will do nothing for the original problem. The idea > was that at some point you need the rate of buffer size increase to > overtake the rate of performance data generation. If performance data is > generated faster than 1000 bytes per query, and adding 1000 bytes isn't > enough, adding *at most* 1000 bytes (as you suggested) is strictly less > effective. I suggested a linear function with a steeper slope (which may > not be enough) or an exponential, which will definitely be enough, but may > introduce huge buffers. -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/