X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<43C9AF7B.5000601@earthlink.net>
Date:	Sat, 14 Jan 2006 21:12:11 -0500
From:	Paul McFerrin <pmcferrin AT earthlink DOT net>
Reply-To:	pmcferrin AT att DOT net
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040804 Netscape/7.2 (ax)
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Stat(2) trigger on-demand virus scan
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

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/

- Raw text -