X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: "Dave Korn" To: References: <47616D31 DOT 7090002 AT 4raccoons DOT com> Subject: RE: VM and non-blocking writes Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 17:45:45 -0000 Message-ID: <010201c83daf$fd1aeaf0$2e08a8c0@CAM.ARTIMI.COM> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook 11 In-Reply-To: <47616D31.7090002@4raccoons.com> Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: 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 13 December 2007 17:35, Wayne Christopher wrote: > What I see is that no matter how large the size is that I give to > write(), the return value is always the full size. Also, I see the > virtual memory used by my process go way up - in fact it goes up by much > more than the amount of data I've written. > > I tried putting in a limit of 10KB in the size given to the write() > call. I still see the VM size grow - more slowly this time, but it > eventually reaches 1.5GB and then I'm out of memory. > > Has anybody seen this behavior? Dunno about anyone else, but I haven't. > Should I not be using O_NDELAY? It's supposed to work; it's always possible you've hit on a bug. > Any other workarounds? > > I don't have a simple example program but I can make one if that will help. Yes, it would be a good idea; let's see if anyone can reproduce the problem. What firewall/antispyware/other net-related security software do you have installed? 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/