Slow performance following upgrade

2007-03-22 Thread Zak Johnson
I recently installed Cygwin (1.5.24(0.156/4/2)) on a new (dual-core) machine, and am seeing much slower performance than a February install of Cygwin on an older machine (no longer available for comparison, I'm afraid). I suspect it is a problem with disk IO, mostly because it is more noticable in

Re: Slow performance following upgrade

2007-03-23 Thread Zak Johnson
Lev Bishop wrote: > On 3/23/07, Zak Johnson wrote: > >I first blamed XFT, as it manifested itself most obviously when starting > >XFT applications; > > fc-cache helps? fc-cache fails: $ fc-cache /usr/X11R6/lib/X11/fonts: failed to write cache /usr/X11R6/lib/X1

Re: Slow performance following upgrade

2007-03-23 Thread Zak Johnson
Dave Korn wrote: > Do you have any of the following installed? > > - Sonic Solutions burning software containing DLA component (dlactrlw.exe) > - Norton/MacAffee/Symantec antivirus or antispyware These two; no others. I disabled DLA using Sysinternals autoruns, as per the "Cygwin fork()" threa

Re: Slow performance following upgrade

2007-03-23 Thread Zak Johnson
Dave Korn wrote: > Suspect DLA then. No such luck, I'm afriad. Uninstalled DLA (and all other Roxio software, for good measure). Rebooted. Verified DLA is not running and no DLA-related DLLs exist. No change in behavior. In fact, I see similar behavior when booted into safe mode. What else

Re: Slow performance following upgrade

2007-03-24 Thread Zak Johnson
Lev Bishop wrote: > With the default fontconfig install, fc-cache tries to put the caches > in /var/cache/fontconfig and ~/.fontconfig. Check you can write and > create files in those directories. Thanks for the suggestions. ~/.fontconfig did not exist; /var/cache/fontconfig was owned and writeab

Re: Slow performance following upgrade [SOLVED]

2007-03-27 Thread Zak Johnson
Zak Johnson wrote: > I recently installed Cygwin (1.5.24(0.156/4/2)) on a new (dual-core) > machine, and am seeing much slower performance than a February install > of Cygwin on an older machine (no longer available for comparison, I'm > afraid). > [...] I've tracked