continued in: https://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2015-07/msg00009.html
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Gesendet: Freitag, 12 Juni 2015 um 15:14:04 Uhr Von: "Marco Atzeri" marco dot atzeri at gmail dot com An: cygwin at cygwin dot com Betreff: Re: cygwin on W7: stalled scp (openssh-6.8p1), lost ssh-scp-pipe data On 6/12/2015 2:59 PM, Theodor dot Kazhan at gmx dot de wrote: > Hi Corinna, all, > > in case someone is still as curious about it as I am, it took nearly one week > and 3433 attempts: > > $ while true; do DATE=`date +%Y%m%d_%H%M%S`; echo -n "started: $DATE"; scp > -v -C -o BatchMode=yes tester@10.IP2.IP3.IP4:"logDownload_m/TEST.txt" . > > scp_$DATE.txt 2>&1; echo " - finished: `date +%Y%m%d_%H%M%S`"; rm -v `ls -1 > scp_2015* | head -n -3`; sleep 5; done > started: 20150605_170918 - finished: 20150605_171220 > „scp_20150603_182927.txt“ entfernt > started: 20150605_171225 - finished: 20150605_171531 > „scp_20150603_183041.txt“ entfernt > started: 20150605_171536 - finished: 20150605_171842 > „scp_20150603_183156.txt“ entfernt > . . . > started: 20150612_113735 - finished: 20150612_113845 > „scp_20150612_113347.txt“ entfernt > started: 20150612_113850 - finished: 20150612_114003 > „scp_20150612_113502.txt“ entfernt > started: 20150612_114009 <== this ssh-download is stalled > > ... to reproduce this issue one more time on my 2nd env (cygcheck attached to > my previous email dated 05. June 2016, 17:00). This time, a 32k buffer (the > 16k-blocks B003363 and B003364) is lost: > > $ sdiff -stw40 <(cat TEST.txt | sed -re "s/(B0.....-N001024-)/\1\n/g" | cut > -d- -f-2) <(seq -w 1 1 94796 | sed -re "s/.*/B0&-N000001/g") > . > B003363-N000001 > . > B003364-N000001 > .B094793-N000001 < > .B094794-N000001 < > > > Any advice is still highly appreciated, e.g. on howto debug into Cygwin/Win > I/O-APIs, read/write functions, pipe implementation... For much more details, > please refer to my previous emails. > > > Thanks and BR, > T. > Hi Theodor, Question: last cygwin 2.0.4 or previous version ? Maybe is no relevant for your case but there were some fixes In theory during tests a 64K buffer should be faster Regards Marco -- 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 -- 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
