X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
From: mwoehlke <mwoehlke AT tibco DOT com>
Subject:  Re: slow share = slow scripts?
Date:  Thu, 25 May 2006 11:13:14 -0500
Lines: 35
Message-ID: <e54l2q$soh$1@sea.gmane.org>
References:  <e52m82$rgm$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <4474FCB5 DOT 9070906 AT cygwin DOT com>  <e54elr$41p$1 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <4475C82B DOT 9060207 AT cygwin DOT com> <e54ihh$hnf$2 AT sea DOT gmane DOT org> <Pine DOT GSO DOT 4 DOT 63 DOT 0605251138210 DOT 19906 AT access1 DOT cims DOT nyu DOT edu>
Mime-Version:  1.0
Content-Type:  text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding:  7bit
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.2 (X11/20060420)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.63.0605251138210.19906@access1.cims.nyu.edu>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
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

Igor Peshansky wrote:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006, mwoehlke wrote:
> 
>> Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>>> On 05/25/2006, mwoehlke wrote:
>>>> Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>>>>> Take a look at the -x, -E, and -X flags of 'mount'. Perhaps these
>>>> will help
>>>>> you.
>>>> Hmm, those are mutually contradictory... guess I'll "experiment". Out of
>>>> curiosity, what are any of these expected to do?
>>> They are indeed mutually exclusive.  See 'man mount' for an explanation of
>>> the
>>> flags.  You might want to try -x or -X.
>> Right, I *was* looking at the man, which is why I was confused. It
>> doesn't say why this would help, though; does it somehow allow Cygwin to
>> skip the fstat() call? Also, why *is* fstat() so inefficient? Can
>> anything be done about it?
>>
>> I *am* going to play with them, if I can convince Cygwin to let me
>> *un*mount the path. :-)
> 
> Just a WAG, but do take a look at the -u and -s flags to mount/umount.
> Otherwise, please let us know what exact error message you're getting from
> umount.

Nope, wasn't umount'ing.. sorry, my bad. :-)

I was misremembering that Cygwin doesn't have or need a 'umount'. 
Must've been thinking about something else. At any rate, I know I have 
sometimes been able to re-mount drives without first unmounting them.

-- 
Matthew
...Ruthlessly beating Windows with a hammer until it looks like POSIX.


--
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/