Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 14:02:47 -0400
From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please AT cygwin DOT com>
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: Re: last snapshot (2011-03-13)
Message-ID: <20110318180247.GA24890@ednor.casa.cgf.cx>
Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
References: <20110318174340 DOT 11864kumrhjf7ags AT messagerie DOT si DOT c-s DOT fr>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110318174340.11864kumrhjf7ags@messagerie.si.c-s.fr>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 05:43:40PM +0100, EXCOFFIER Denis wrote:
>This follows http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2011-03/msg00563.html
>
>> Maybe it has something to do with the nonpaged pool size?  MSDN states:
>>
>>  "Every time a named pipe is created, the system creates the inbound
>>   and/or outbound buffers using nonpaged pool, which is the physical
>>   memory used by the kernel.  [...]
>>   The input and output buffer sizes are advisory. The actual buffer
>>   size reserved for each end of the named pipe is either the system
>>   default, the system minimum or maximum, or the specified size rounded
>>   up to the next allocation boundary. The buffer size specified should
>>   be small enough that your process will not run out of nonpaged pool,
>>   but large enough to accommodate typical requests."
>
>We could be in the right direction: i've open "Task manager" on both
>machines and the non-failing one has "Nonpaged=98Mb" and the
>failing one has "Nonpaged=36Mb" (only). Of course, these values are
>constantly moving, but seem to remain within an interval of a few Mb.

Sorry.  The lack of threading and over-cutting of comments has me a
little confused.  AFAICT, we're now responding to my comment:

>On Fri, 18 Mar 2011 10:31:15 -0400 cgf wrote:
>>I suppose that was because the buffer size was too large for their
>>system to handle.

Or, are you saying that you still see failures when setting the buffer
size down to 64K?

--
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