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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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/
