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: Andrew DeFaria Subject: Re: Win2k and cygwin memory leak Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2003 11:51:02 -0700 Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: 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:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, zh In-Reply-To: Mail-Copies-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Brian.Kelly@empireblue.com wrote: > Forgot to add that I call the perl script every *FIVE* minutes - 24-7. > The script is VERY memory intensive so it really works cygwin and the > 2000 Server HEAVY. If I didn't scrub the memory four times a day, the > box would crash - and did just recently when I had turned off RAMpage > for testing. Running a very memory intensive process every 5 minutes seems wasteful to me. Why not make the very memory intensive process a daemon and write a very memory light client to query it? Also, I may be naive or idealistic but I don't think that running out of memory should ever "crash" a system (depending on your definition of crash) rather it should either grind to a crawl or new processes should fail with out of memory errors. It is really crashing your 2000 server? If so who do you think is really responsible for such an (here's a clue) OS failure? -- 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/