This is the mail archive of the
cygwin@cygwin.com
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: is cygwin lame???
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Subject: Re: is cygwin lame???
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf at redhat dot com>
- Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 10:41:53 -0400
- Cc: michael dot scheibler at onevision dot de
- References: <034601c11505$0a368710$6d07a8c0@miro>
- Reply-To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
On Wed, Jul 25, 2001 at 02:26:32PM +0200, Michael Scheibler wrote:
>We are experiencing a major difference in performance between bash on a real
>unix system and on cygwin. I can't imagine that this is a problem of
>Windows - it might be a catastrophe in os design, but you can't say that
>it's THAT slow.
>Now we looked at out network monitoring tools and found this:
>
>.
>.
>.
>.
>31384 13:04:10 bash.exe:112 FASTIO_READ Z:\make_classdll.sh SUCCESS Offset:
>598 Length: 1
>31385 13:04:10 bash.exe:112 FASTIO_CHECK_IF_POSSIBLE Z:\make_classdll.sh
>SUCCESS Read: Offset: 599 Length: 1
>31386 13:04:10 bash.exe:112 FASTIO_READ Z:\make_classdll.sh SUCCESS Offset:
>599 Length: 1
>31387 13:04:10 bash.exe:112 FASTIO_CHECK_IF_POSSIBLE Z:\make_classdll.sh
>SUCCESS Read: Offset: 600 Length: 1
>31388 13:04:10 bash.exe:112 FASTIO_READ Z:\make_classdll.sh SUCCESS Offset:
>600 Length: 1
Thanks for the bug report. You've properly hit on the problem.
Cygwin is indeed lame or as we like to call it "ambulatorally challenged".
Sorry for the inconvenience.
cgf
--
Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html
Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/