X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:31:03 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: Call for TESTING (was Re: [1.7.0-50] scp progress counter 	flies   through first 175 MB or so)
Message-ID: <20090701153103.GA5802@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20090629092857 DOT GZ30864 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20090629095322 DOT GD30864 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20090629142348 DOT GB19123 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <20090629144030 DOT GC19123 AT ednor DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx> <4A490F0E DOT 6040806 AT etr-usa DOT com> <20090630112617 DOT GS30864 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <4A4A3B64 DOT 4030004 AT etr-usa DOT com> <Pine DOT CYG DOT 4 DOT 58 DOT 0906301407590 DOT 4092 AT PC1163-8460-XP DOT flightsafety DOT com> <20090701092617 DOT GU30864 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <2bf229d30907010723r3d1e38caxbb8cc70d998b4ac7 AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2bf229d30907010723r3d1e38caxbb8cc70d998b4ac7@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.19 (2009-01-05)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
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

On Wed, Jul 01, 2009 at 10:23:14AM -0400, Chris Sutcliffe wrote:
>> Anyway, using ssh/scp with the latest from CVS looks much better now.
>> It doesn't eat up all CPU anymore and the performance looks pretty
>> well as far as I can tell.
>
>Are these changes captured in the 2009/06/30 snapshot?

The 6/30 snapshot incorporates a medium-sized rewrite to select() which
allowed me to add a blocking wait in the code for pipes.  That doesn't
eliminate the possibility that select will chew through CPU time though.

I just redid the 7/1 snapshot to pull in Corinna's changes.

cgf

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple