Please help with a problem I have had since
upgrading to latest Cygwin DLL. When I do
IO using fopen it is many times slower now
than IO using simple open. Also programs
like sort and cut have very slow IO access
times. This behavior is not seen when I
compile my own programs with the -mno-cygwin
o
I am just asking again about this problem in
the hopes that someone might have anything to
suggest. It seems that fopen is 10 to 20 times
slower than open on my I/O operations due
to large delays in executing a system call
"set_flags". I will have to rewrite all my
code and abandon most of the text
On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:14:17PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>I am just asking again about this problem in the hopes that someone
>might have anything to suggest. It seems that fopen is 10 to 20 times
>slower than open on my I/O operations due to large delays in executing
>a system call "set
At 11:42 PM 6/22/2004, you wrote
>On Tue, Jun 22, 2004 at 11:14:17PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>I am just asking again about this problem in the hopes that someone
>>might have anything to suggest. It seems that fopen is 10 to 20 times
>>slower than open on my I/O operations due to large de
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004, sevenrider wrote:
> I am just asking again about this problem in
> the hopes that someone might have anything to
> suggest. It seems that fopen is 10 to 20 times
> slower than open on my I/O operations due
> to large delays in executing a system call
> "set_flags". I will have
Uh..., nevermind. That's what I get for reading the thread backward.
Sorry for the noise. I'll take a look.
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004, Brian Ford wrote:
> If you have not made any progress on this, could you send me your strace
> output and a sample program if possible? I'd like to look at it as my
Thanks to those who responded to my post.
I am not sure though if all of you read the
entire sequence of the thread.
In my first post, I did attach an excerpt
from an strace dump of a sample program that
seemed to show "where the time is going".
Here is the relevant information again in case
it was
>
> Possibly I should add that I am comparing the behavior of
> version 1.5.10 to a much older version that I was using
> before.
It wasn't by chance... oh... say... B20? ;-)
> So whatever is causing this odd behavior on my system
> may not be a feature that was new to version 1.5.10. I am
>
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 02:36:52AM -0400, Joseph wrote:
> Thanks to those who responded to my post.
>
> I am not sure though if all of you read the
> entire sequence of the thread.
>
> In my first post, I did attach an excerpt
> from an strace dump of a sample program that
> seemed to show "where
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 11:45:04AM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 02:36:52AM -0400, Joseph wrote:
> > Thanks to those who responded to my post.
> >
> > I am not sure though if all of you read the
> > entire sequence of the thread.
> >
> > In my first post, I did attach
On Sat, 26 Jun 2004, GARY VANSICKLE wrote:
> [snip]
> You have to umount before mounting if any of the directories are already
> mounted unfortunately (last I checked anyway).
Take a look a the "-f" option to mount.
Igor
--
http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:05:54PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>Beware, I found this:
>2000-05-19 DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> * libc/include/stdio.h: no getc/putc macros for cygwin; causes
> compatibility issues with different dll versions
>so you may need to recompile when u
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 01:09:40PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:05:54PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >Beware, I found this:
> >2000-05-19 DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > * libc/include/stdio.h: no getc/putc macros for cygwin; causes
> > compatibili
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 01:09:40PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:05:54PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> >Beware, I found this:
>> >2000-05-19 DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >* libc/incl
Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 01:09:40PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:05:54PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
Beware, I found this:
2000-05-19 DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
* libc/include/stdio.h: no getc/putc macros for cygwin; causes
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 10:45:51PM +0100, Mark Thornton wrote:
>Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>
>>On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 01:09:40PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:05:54PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>>
>>>
Beware, I found this:
2000-05-19 DJ Delor
On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 01:09:40PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 12:05:54PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>> >Beware, I found this:
>> >2000-05-19 DJ Delorie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >* libc/incl
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 03:42:05PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >Digging deeper, I see there is a function getc_unlocked. Using it
> >instead of getc improves the speed by a factor 5.
> >Now that I know about it, I will re
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 05:29:50PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 03:42:05PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 01:41:45PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>
>> >Digging deeper, I see there is a function getc_unlocked. Using it
>> >instead of getc i
On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 05:29:50PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
Your change makes getc work almost as fast a getc_unlocked.
This is on Win98. Yesterday's results were on WinME, where the
differences were larger. That hard drive died this morning :(
On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 11:52:29PM -0300, Fr?d?ric L. W. Meunier wrote:
>On Sun, 27 Jun 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>
>>On Sun, Jun 27, 2004 at 05:29:50PM -0400, Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
>>>Your change makes getc work almost as fast a getc_unlocked.
>>>This is on Win98. Yesterday's results were
Thank you to everyone for your help
with my question. I hope the responses
may also have been of some use to others
besides me. I will download the new dll
from http://www.cygwin.com/snapshots/
and see if it fixes my problems.
Actually I upgraded from a 1.1.x
version of Cygwin which is why I asked
Christopher Faylor writes:
>>Is Cygwin killing hard drives ?
>
> In my case, the hard drive has never seen cygwin, even the cygwin source
> code, so if it is, it would be action at a distance.
Wow, that Cygwin software is even more poweful than I imagined :-P
Jan.
--
Jan Nieuwenhuizen <[EMAIL
> -Original Message-
> From: cygwin-owner On Behalf Of Christopher Faylor
> Sent: 27 June 2004 01:23
> On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 10:45:51PM +0100, Mark Thornton wrote:
> >Pierre A. Humblet wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, Jun 26, 2004 at 01:09:40PM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>On S
24 matches
Mail list logo
