X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<5525767.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Jul 2006 10:39:35 -0700 (PDT)
From:	aldana <aldana AT gmx DOT de>
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	RE: cygwin copy problems usb 2.0
In-Reply-To:	<000901c6b194$d56881f0$020aa8c0@DFW5RB41>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Nabble-Sender:	aldana AT gmx DOT de
X-Nabble-From:	aldana <aldana AT gmx DOT de>
References:	<5519828 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <000901c6b194$d56881f0$020aa8c0 AT DFW5RB41>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Unsubscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie DOT com AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

total commander is a clone of norton commander. something like midnight
commander on linux.

i thought the same: choice between usb 1.x and 2.0 is done far lower level
that cygwin can really influence it. but the difference of speed made me
consipicious.

example, copying a single file (.tar.gz) of size ~70MB:
with total commander it takes 20 sec.
with cygwin it takes 4 minutes (!), which is plain too long to include it in
my script.

i know through its abstracton layer cygwin must be slower. but regarding
that slowliness could it be another reason? 

thanks again!
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/cygwin-copy-problems-usb-2.0-tf2009189.html#a5525767
Sent from the Cygwin Users forum at Nabble.com.


--
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/

- Raw text -