X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,URI_BLOGSPOT X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org From: Barry Kelly To: Lenik Cc: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Can cygwin boot faster? Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 14:24:59 +0100 Message-ID: <7c9jv45ar71m67rpihpmg6r6t5bapaafut@4ax.com> References: <49F8E62B DOT 2050008 AT bodz DOT net> In-Reply-To: <49F8E62B.2050008@bodz.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Id: 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 Lenik wrote: > Because of the slow speed, when I'm programming with cygwin, I will=20 > carefully to invoke command calls to the cygwin executables, to reduce=20 > the start up cost. I've sometimes wondered if it would be worth it to have busybox ported to Cygwin, just to cut out the forking cost for filesystem operations. Right now, if I need to write a script that needs to perform mass filesystem operations, I do all sorts of tricks to stream data into temporary files, convert paths to Windows with `cygpath -w -f -`, then `paste` and `sed` it into shape, before finally piping it off to `cmd.exe` (or a batch file) for final execution, just to avoid this forking cost. On the other hand, it's nice, when performing large batch filesystem operations, to output the commands to be executed as a script so that it can be validated before letting it all happen. -- Barry --=20 http://barrkel.blogspot.com/ -- 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/