Brett Serkez wrote:
[snip]
>
>> From what I've been seeing, I'm starting to suspect that the problem(s)
>
> is
> there in both cases, the scanner simply makes it much more noticable. I
> do see more CPU consumption that I woud have expected even without the
> virus scanner and the original poster's calling out stat was most
> interesting.
>
Interesting observation...... I just assummed it was the stat(2) call since the only thing
I was doing was a "find ... >file". I know that find (or at least the SysV version) does a
readdir(3) syscall and I just totally ignored it. Even it it was readdir(3), MS should not
be triggering on-demand scanner hooks for directory-only operations.
-paul
--
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/
