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 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Shankar Unni Subject: Re: Cygwin is VERY slow now Date: Fri, 02 May 2003 09:19:17 -0700 Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: <3EB16E7D.2090209@sie.arizona.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030401 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: >>"Q8114993" Q811493. And then Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > If there is a short-running command (e.g., ls, cp, id) that gets > noticeably slower after the hotfix, an interesting piece of data would be > the output of strace on that command, both with and without the hotfix. The funny thing is that I have this hotfix on my WinXP Pro SP1 laptop, and _generally_ things are fast enough, but _occasionally_ some small command (e.g. diff of a couple of small files) will hang for about 10 seconds before executing. (Immediately re-executing it seems to make it work OK, so I'm guessing this may not really be Q811493 in action at all, but more likely something like the gethostname() thing. But I may still uninstall the hotfix anyway, since I never run my laptop connected to a public internet anyway..) -- Shankar. -- 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/