This is the mail archive of the cygwin mailing list for the Cygwin project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Call for TESTING (was Re: [1.7.0-50] scp progress counter flies through first 175 MB or so)


On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 10:23:48AM -0400, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>On Mon, Jun 29, 2009 at 11:53:22AM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>On Jun 29 11:28, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>>>On Jun 28 15:31, Christopher Faylor wrote:
>>>>Btw, Corinna, were you proposing turning the "FIXME" code in peek_pipe
>>>>back on?
>>>
>>>I'm a bit wary to do that, but...
>>>
>>>>I don't think I ever saw it fail myself after my last round of tweaks
>>>>but I don't remember what the exact problem was.  Did it fail on some
>>>>version of Windows NT/2000/XP/2003/2008/7?
>>>
>>>...I just searched for the old threads and here's where the problem
>>>starts: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-09/msg00416.html
>>>
>>>That led to: http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2004-q3/msg00091.html
>>>
>>>And then there was the Unison problem:
>>>http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2004-09/msg01131.html
>>>
>>>Which was subsequently discussed here:
>>>http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-patches/2004-q3/msg00133.html
>>>
>>>I tested sftp with big files (Gigs) and it appears to work fine with
>>>the FIXME code switched back to life.  I tested the unison command
>>>using Cygwin's unison 2.31.4-2 under tcsh and it worked fine.  I tested
>>>various combinations with pipes created by a native application and
>>>with native applications on send and receive side of a Cygwin pipe and
>>>all my testcases worked as expected.
>>>
>>>So, maybe we should really give it a try again.
>>
>>Btw., I also tried the rsync of 9000 files with the FIXME code active
>>and it worked a couple of times in a row without fail.
>
>I did make a change subsequent to your turning off this code.  Maybe
>that was enough to get things working.  Either that or, if you are using
>the trunk code, maybe you aren't hitting this at all anymore since there
>are overlapped I/O accomodations.
>
>Anyway, I wouldn't mind giving the code another try if you are up for
>it.  Although I didn't write the code originally, it has always bothered
>me that it didn't work because it seems like it should have.
>
>Shall I turn it on, create a snapshot, and then ask our legion of
>testers to try it?

I'm going to assume the answer is yes and I'm leaving for a little
while, I'm generating a snapshot now.

So what I'd appreciate from the Cygwin community is to read the URLs
above and then try out the snapshot.  We're trying to find out if it is
worth turning on some code in Cygwin which improves the handling of
pipes.  This snapshot has the code on.

I'd like to get as much OS coverage as possible so if you could reply
here with:

1) Windows version NT3.5/NT4/XP/2000/2003/2008/7, etc.

2) Success/failure.  Success would be no hangs.  Failure would be a hang
or a Cygwin "panic".

3) Any additional notes like "seems faster", "seems slower", "no
change".

If a failure is noted then please give as many details as possible.

The snapshot will be available at http://cygwin.com/snapshots/ with today's
(2009-06-29) date.

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


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]