This is the mail archive of the
cygwin
mailing list for the Cygwin project.
Re: Call for TESTING (was Re: [1.7.0-50] scp progress counter flies through first 175 MB or so)
- From: Christopher Faylor <cgf-use-the-mailinglist-please at cygwin dot com>
- To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
- Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 11:31:03 -0400
- Subject: Re: Call for TESTING (was Re: [1.7.0-50] scp progress counter flies through first 175 MB or so)
- References: <20090629092857.GZ30864@calimero.vinschen.de> <20090629095322.GD30864@calimero.vinschen.de> <20090629142348.GB19123@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <20090629144030.GC19123@ednor.casa.cgf.cx> <4A490F0E.6040806@etr-usa.com> <20090630112617.GS30864@calimero.vinschen.de> <4A4A3B64.4030004@etr-usa.com> <Pine.CYG.4.58.0906301407590.4092@PC1163-8460-XP.flightsafety.com> <20090701092617.GU30864@calimero.vinschen.de> <2bf229d30907010723r3d1e38caxbb8cc70d998b4ac7@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: 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