From: Barry Kelly <bkelly.ie@gmail.com>
To: Lenik <lenik@bodz.net>
Cc: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: Can cygwin boot faster?
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:24:59 +0100
Message-ID: <7c9jv45ar71m67rpihpmg6r6t5bapaafut@4ax.com>
References: <49F8E62B.2050008@bodz.net>
In-Reply-To: <49F8E62B.2050008@bodz.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com

Lenik wrote:

> Because of the slow speed, when I'm programming with cygwin, I will=20
> carefully to invoke command calls to the cygwin executables, to reduce=20
> the start up cost.

I've sometimes wondered if it would be worth it to have busybox ported
to Cygwin, just to cut out the forking cost for filesystem operations.

Right now, if I need to write a script that needs to perform mass
filesystem operations, I do all sorts of tricks to stream data into
temporary files, convert paths to Windows with `cygpath -w -f -`, then
`paste` and `sed` it into shape, before finally piping it off to
`cmd.exe` (or a batch file) for final execution, just to avoid this
forking cost.

On the other hand, it's nice, when performing large batch filesystem
operations, to output the commands to be executed as a script so that it
can be validated before letting it all happen.

-- Barry

--=20
http://barrkel.blogspot.com/

--
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/