X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_THREADED,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Message-ID: <4FC7C859.5050909@cs.umass.edu> Date: Thu, 31 May 2012 15:36:57 -0400 From: Eliot Moss Reply-To: moss AT cs DOT umass DOT edu User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120428 Thunderbird/12.0.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Shell script loop runs out of memory References: <786EBDA1AC46254B813E200779E7AD36023A42C2 AT srv1163ex1 DOT flightsafety DOT com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 > 1. Does "fewer forks" mean that some forks are still occurring, thus the same > memory crash will still happen, but not right away? Just delaying the > inevitable, for longer than my original script does? I think so, assuming the problem is that forks are not getting fully reclaimed. > 2. What is this I read about "rebasing" for BLODA-related issues ... Can > rebasing help me to completely resolve this script problem? I read the docs > about "rebase all" but don't understand whether it would be effective for my > situation. Or do I just need to close any of the offending software such as > anti-virus, then reopen CygWin and try my script again? Rebasing may or may not be necessary, but it can certainly be important to have BLODA inactive, which often means *removing* it, because of all the little background things and services these packages throw in. Eliot Moss -- 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