On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 09:40:38AM -0400, Philip Gladstone wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>><>On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:36:22PM -0400, Philip Gladstone wrote:
>>>The slowness that I see with Symantec Antivirus is due to the 'select'
>>>emulation in cygwin. Whenever XWin.exe does a select (which
Christopher Faylor wrote:
Ok. I've changed the algorithm in select. It only opens a DGRAM socket
now, one time per thread. It uses this to terminate the socket thread,
if necessary. This socket is never closed until the thread terminates.
It sounds like this would more or less fix the problem
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
Would you mind trying a new snapshot?
The snapshot is terrific. What took several minutes before now takes 10
seconds.
Thanks!
Dick
-
Dick Repasky
Bioinformatics Support
UITS Cubicle 101.08
Indiana University
USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004, Christopher Faylor wrote:
You're welcome. What OS are you using XP, Me, etc.?
XP SP2 and Symantec Corporate version 9 running under VMWare on a 3 GHz
Linux machine (up-to-date gentoo) with 1 GB mem. My standard test is to
log into a remote machine and launch SAS interactivel
Jack Tanner wrote:
> A while back I mentioned I was experiencing slowdowns under X.
> http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2004-09/msg00010.html
>
> I think the slowdowns may have to do with Symantec Antivirus.
I'll add this to the FAQ. Does Symantec Antivirus has an option to disable
scanni
Alexander Gottwald wrote:
I'll add this to the FAQ. Does Symantec Antivirus has an option to disable
scanning for certain programs?
Try adding XWin.exe to that list.
Good idea, but no dice. I added the entire c:\cygwin\ tree to the
Symantec exclusion list, but the slowdown is still there. There's
PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: cygwin/x symantec antivirus conflict
Alexander Gottwald wrote:
> I'll add this to the FAQ. Does Symantec Antivirus has an option to disable
> scanning for certain programs?
>
> Try adding XWin.exe to that list.
Good idea, but no dice. I added the
age-
> From: Jack Tanner
> Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2004 5:05 PM
> Subject: Re: cygwin/x symantec antivirus conflict
>
> Alexander Gottwald wrote:
> > I'll add this to the FAQ. Does Symantec Antivirus has an option to
> disable
> > scanning for certain pr
I, too, experience the problem, and the problem seems to depend on
hardware.
IBM Thinkpad 600x 500 MHz, 200 MB mem.
I not only see the keyboard delay that Jack mentions, but I get terrible X
forwarding. Without Symantec, I wait about 10 seconds for all SAS windows
from a remote session to be dis
Dick Repasky wrote:
I, too, experience the problem, and the problem seems to depend on
hardware.
Thank you for letting me know that I'm not totally nuts.
In addition to the keyboard delay, I too get slow rendering for
X-forwarded apps.
I can't imagine that this problem is due to the hardware. I'm
I do see the problem with slow rendering of X-forwarded apps on one of my computers,
and it does not have symmantec installed (it does have F-Prot antivirus installed,
however)
I have never figured out what is wrong with it... It used to work fine, and then I did
an update at somepoint, and the
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004, Jack Tanner wrote:
Dick, what versions of Symantec Antivirus and scan enginge are you running?
Do you get the delay if you're typing into a local shell? Do you get the
delay if you're typing into a remote ssh-connected shell, but running under a
local rxvt binary instead of x
Dick Repasky wrote:
I'm running Symantec 9.0.0.1400 with scan engine 1.2.0.13.
Same as me. The two people that said they weren't having problems were
running version 8.1.1.323 (Daniel) or 10.0.1.13 (Giampaolo).
I think it's time to try an upgrade or a downgrade.
I haven't tried it with rxvt rathe
Alexander Gottwald wrote:
Jack Tanner wrote:
A while back I mentioned I was experiencing slowdowns under X.
http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2004-09/msg00010.html
I think the slowdowns may have to do with Symantec Antivirus.
The slowness that I see with Symantec Antivirus is due to
On Wed, Oct 06, 2004 at 10:36:22PM -0400, Philip Gladstone wrote:
>Alexander Gottwald wrote:
>>Jack Tanner wrote:
>>>A while back I mentioned I was experiencing slowdowns under X.
>>>http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-xfree/2004-09/msg00010.html
>>>
>>>I think the slowdowns may have to do with Sym
OK, so maybe it's not just Symantec that's causing the problem. I've
turned off auto-protect, and a remote emacs still takes far too long to
draw. (But with auto-protect enabled, it takes longer still.)
Is there some profiling I could do, or a debug build I could run that
would help isolate a c
On Sun, Oct 10, 2004 at 11:33:00PM -0400, Philip Gladstone wrote:
>Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>Ok. I've changed the algorithm in select. It only opens a DGRAM
>>socket now, one time per thread. It uses this to terminate the socket
>>thread, if necessary. This socket is never closed until the th
Christopher Faylor wrote:
For those who haven't been following along at home, it looks like a
change I just made to select() may solve the dreaded "slows down to a
crawl with Symantec AntiVirus" problem.
This may also improve the performance of things that use sockets
slightly.
So, I'd appreciate r
--On 11 October 2004 00:06 -0400 Christopher Faylor
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So, I'd appreciate reports on the latest snapshot. Does it fix any
problems? Cause any problems? No change?
I have XP Pro and Symantec AV - the 20041010 snapshot fixes the slowness I
was having with emacs/X locally
19 matches
Mail list logo
