Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:26:39 -0500 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: pipe improvements in snapshot Message-ID: <20021211192639.GE29798@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20021211041250.GA31215@redhat.com> <44125937.20021211150845@huno.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <44125937.20021211150845@huno.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:08:45PM +0100, thomas wrote: >Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> Please check out the latest snapshot and report here if there are >> problems. I haven't yet tried this on Windows 9x class systems so it's >> entirely possible that there is a problem there. > >It seems to work great! I did a few tests and there was no delay anymore >whatsoever. I've just sent the dll to someone to try out on a 9x system. I'll test this on 9x myself eventually. With gritted teeth... >One thing about the possible data loss: Is that true data loss, like >some bytes won't make it trough the pipe, or will that only result in a >delay because the bytes have to be send again? It's true data loss but it is very very unlikely that it will ever be hit. I thought I would get this out there while I ruminated on ways to eliminate the potential for loss. >I will do some more thourough tests and will report back. > >Thanks so far! You're welcome. 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/