From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 32061 invoked by alias); 11 Dec 2002 19:34:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Received: (qmail 32053 invoked from network); 11 Dec 2002 19:34:38 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO redhat.com) (66.30.22.225) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 11 Dec 2002 19:34:38 -0000 Received: by redhat.com (Postfix, from userid 201) id 7A40E1C102; Wed, 11 Dec 2002 14:35:53 -0500 (EST) Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 11:46:00 -0000 From: Christopher Faylor To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: pipe improvements in snapshot Message-ID: <20021211193553.GA30532@redhat.com> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20021211041250.GA31215@redhat.com> <44125937.20021211150845@huno.net> <20021211192639.GE29798@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20021211192639.GE29798@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.1i X-SW-Source: 2002-12/txt/msg00621.txt.bz2 On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 02:26:39PM -0500, Christopher Faylor wrote: >On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 03:08:45PM +0100, thomas wrote: >>Christopher Faylor wrote: >> >>> Please check out the latest snapshot and report here if there are >>> problems. I haven't yet tried this on Windows 9x class systems so it's >>> entirely possible that there is a problem there. >> >>It seems to work great! I did a few tests and there was no delay anymore >>whatsoever. I've just sent the dll to someone to try out on a 9x system. > >I'll test this on 9x myself eventually. With gritted teeth... > >>One thing about the possible data loss: Is that true data loss, like >>some bytes won't make it trough the pipe, or will that only result in a >>delay because the bytes have to be send again? > >It's true data loss but it is very very unlikely that it will ever be hit. >I thought I would get this out there while I ruminated on ways to eliminate >the potential for loss. > >>I will do some more thourough tests and will report back. >> >>Thanks so far! > >You're welcome. Btw, thanks for the feedback. It's an interesting datapoint. It seems to mean that the context switch implicit in introducing a thread into the pipe read is substantially less than the 10ms delay we were adding in the old scheme. This probably makes sense but... this is Windows, so.... cgf -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Bug reporting: http://cygwin.com/bugs.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/