Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Thu, Nov 18, 2004 at 09:15:49AM +0100, J?rg Schaible wrote: [snip] >>Well, this *is* the list for reporting problems with Cygwin. Sorry, >>that I missed among all the other 450 mail per month, the one Chris >>stated, that he don't want straces sent to list without further asking. > > My reason for stating this is that the majority of people who send strace > output snip the wrong part. Often people snip something that they think > shows a problem and send that lines and the next hundred lines. It turns > out to be wasted bandwidth.
That's the reason, why I just sent the first part, where the initialization of all the pipes and forked processes can be seen and the last part, when scp is shutting down the processes again. I think the middle part, observing scp looking into the private keys and sending the file, is quite useless for this problem. > strace is a tool for people who are willing to look at source code. > Sending megabytes of an unsolicited strace before someone has indicated > that they are willing to help is usually pointless. Yeah, understand that. > FWIW, I ran scp in a loop sending a large file to a system on my local > network and to sourceware.org for hours a couple of days ago without > problems. Since I call from Java always "strace -o /tmp/scp.strace scp" I don't have the problem also. It's slow, but works. Too weird :( At least I could reproduce it without Java also. FWIW. > If this is a problem with the new pipe code then maybe Bob Byrnes could > offer some insight. As said, I'll take any further action to isolate it. Would you expect a difference using the current snapshot? - J�rg -- Unsubscribe info: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple Problem reports: http://cygwin.com/problems.html Documentation: http://cygwin.com/docs.html FAQ: http://cygwin.com/faq/
