X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Dave Korn" To: Subject: RE: simple test triggers fork errs for me in 5/27 snapshot Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 11:21:47 +0100 Message-ID: <022c01c68309$b11beee0$a501a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <200605290153.k4T1rU1P000778@tigris.pounder.sol.net> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: 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 On 29 May 2006 02:53, Tom Rodman wrote: > header> I tried the test case below w/the 5/27 snapshot and got > what appear to be the same fork errors. So, I'm sticking > with the 4/3/2006 snapshot. > > Is there any other info I can supply to help? Yep. Can you run process explorer and take a look at the shell that's running the script - i.e. the fork parent - and see if it's leaking thousands of file handles to pipes with names of a form like: \Device\NamedPipe\Win32Pipes.0000055c.0000003e (hex numbers will vary). cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today.... -- 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/