Win2k and cygwin memory leak

[Andrew DeFaria]

Brian.Kelly@Empireblue.com wrote:

> Well, I can't feel too guilty about chiming "me too" - cause it 
> already brought forth a VERY useful and *productive* response:
>
> http://cygwin.com/ml/cygwin/2003-08/msg00460.html
>
> Unlike the ... uh-hem ... *posts* of some other folks ....

This seems to me to be just a bandaid for a specific OS (not even one 
that you're running).

> I will say this - anything that ends in "contact Microsoft" is about 
> as useful as a 300 baud modem on a Pentium 4. No - the modem is 
> definitely more useful. 

Hey it's tough, but what else can you do really if the OS hangs on to 
the memory? Bandaids like tweaking ini files and RAMpage are just that - 
bandaids.

> All I want to do, is use Cygwin to solve some of my problems. So I'm 
> given a naked Compaq box with dual processors, 2 gigs of ram, and W2K 
> Server w SP3. ( I am not part of the "NT Team" at work - talking to
> them is a lot like talking to Microsoft. ) I set up and run nothing 
> but cygwin and cygwin installed apps. And then I run it again, and 
> again and again and again - and then the box crashes.

Again, why not install Linux?

> And the NT people get all upset cause someone has to find the box in 
> the unlabeled server farm and power it down and back up again. Five 
> meetings full of name calling and finger pointing follow.
>
> Just a slice of my "clueless" life.
>
> But I digress.
>
> All I want is for software ( I didn't say *cygwin* - I'm being 
> *generic* ) to work as "expected". 

It's not "expected" for an application program to cleanup after an OS.

> Crashing servers somehow violate reasonable expectations. 

It's not Cygwin that crashes the system - It's Windows.

> There's an awful lot of other software out there that runs 24-7 on the 
> same windows that you wish to blame and *it* doesn't bring the box 
> down. Non-cygwin Apache comes to mind. I believe it's possible to 
> write code that doesn't as cfg put it  "triggers a windows problem"
>
> Cause it certainly appears to me that others must have encountered the 
> same problem, and didn't say "well it's Microsoft's problem".

You admittedly run processes that take up huge amounts of memory and 
then exit. It is the responsibility of the OS to free those resources 
when the process exits. Windows still has many acknowledged memory leaks 
in such situations.

Apache, OTOH, is a SERVER, designed and implement to run continually in 
the background.

Why don't you look at your own "cygwin" code and implement it as a deamon?

> Now I'm not telling anyone what to do, or not to do. All I know is the 
> Microsoft installed base probably numbers in the *billions* out there. 
> And even if MS *were* to fix the problem, what are the odds that this 
> fix would find it's way onto even a sizable fraction of that base?? 

Depends on how many people insist and running 5 year old OSes (like Win 98)!

> In spite of the bloated bombastic verbage often spewing forth from 
> this forum, a *cygwin* fix is
> definitely the path of least resistance.

And totally undoable. How many times must people tell you, when the 
application exits there is no possible way that Cygwin can do anything 
about it. Cygwin is not in the "business" like RAMPage.

> Believe it or not. Someone will fix this someday. I have "faith". It 
> won't be me, and it won't be someone in Redmond Washington. I have a 
> work-around so I'm currently satisfied. I'll be patient.
>
> Cluelessly yours,
> BK
>
> ( PS - I HATE Windows - put I get paid 'quite well' to work on it, and 
> given the current state of the economy - I think I'll keep working on 
> it ..... )

I don't HATE Windows - I just understand it's limintation (and 
strengths). Cygwin makes Windows a lot more bearable and usable for me.



--
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/