Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-ID: <16072.5319.377807.761155@gargle.gargle.HOWL> Date: Sun, 18 May 2003 16:18:31 -0700 From: Martin Buchholz To: "Max Bowsher" Cc: Subject: Re: Using Cygwin on NT 4.0 and Win2000; a user experience In-Reply-To: <001c01c31d8a$3dbe4d40$78d96f83@pomello> References: <16071 DOT 62978 DOT 20742 DOT 367143 AT gargle DOT gargle DOT HOWL> <001c01c31d8a$3dbe4d40$78d96f83 AT pomello> Reply-To: martin AT xemacs DOT org >>>>> "Max" == Max Bowsher writes: Max> Martin Buchholz wrote: >> - The recent change to make NTFS files SPARSE by default is a >> disaster -- less space and time efficient for "normal" files. >> Please undo this. More details in a separate message. Max> Actual test data relating to this would be very interesting to see. Some was included in my other post. I would have done a more conclusive test, but I now have a working machine that is doing productive work, and I hesitate to go through another two cycles of painful cygwin1.dll installs. But I would be willing to do this if that's what it would take to convince you folks to undo the sparse file patch. If you have a Windows 2000 machine (no service packs) and a recent cygwin, try this experiment: $ ls -l /etc/passwd -rw-rw-rw- 1 Martin B Users 628 May 13 04:10 /etc/passwd $ perl -e 'system("df ."); for (1 ... 1024) { system("cp /etc/passwd foobar$_"); } system("df .")' Filesystem 1k-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on d: 11767580 4290332 7477248 37% /d Filesystem 1k-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on d: 11767580 4290332 7477248 37% /d That's 4kb per small (but not tiny) file with my patch applied. How much space does yours take? It would be interesting to see results on Windows XP as well. (again:) For best reproducibility, I suggest - windows 2000, no service packs - do the experiment on an ntfs partition formatted by windows 2000. I have not done this exact experiment on an unpatched Cygwin, but I predict it would take either 32kb or 64kb per file (also dependent on the filesystem cluster size, but that should default to 4kb). >> - The "grep" package comes with a grep.exe (and no file "grep"), but >> no egrep.exe (instead it has a "egrep"). Of course this is easy for >> the user to fix, but the package should be fixed as well. Max> There is nothing wrong here - it doesn't need to be fixed. There is non-zero support in Sun's Java SDK to allow building using Cygwin tools (although MKS is the "official" supported platform). In one of the Makefiles is this line: EGREP = $(UNIXCOMMAND_PATH)egrep.exe Arguably, this is bad code. You should run a command via its name, sans any .EXE extension. But Cygwin should be consistent; either all executables are named FOO, or they're named FOO.EXE. Make up your mind. >> - There have been many reports of rsync hanging, accompanied by an >> "rsync" process that cannot be killed by "kill -9". I have >> experienced the same, but only on NT 4.0 SP6, not on Win2000. Max> Actually not that many reports, and no solid info on how to reproduce the Max> hang. Max> Since no one can find out exactly why it is hanging, it can't be fixed. It's a stress test. rsync'ing 5 files almost always works; rsync'ing 50000 files almost always fails. I can reproduce it consistently on NT 4.0 SP6, but I don't have the time to become a Cygwin, rsync, and winsock expert so that I can debug it. Martin -- 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/