X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<5528898.post@talk.nabble.com>
Date:	Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:48:48 -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:	<20060727201931.GD3409@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
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> <5528112 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <44C91F4A DOT 8050404 AT cygwin DOT com> <20060727201931 DOT GD3409 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
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

isn't there a possibitly that cygwin provides a quicker cp-implementation?
i mean 4 minutes for a copy of 70MB to a memstick (instead of CopyFile() 20
sec.) is not really good performance.  
i guess there is a reason for that... 
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/cygwin-copy-problems-usb-2.0-tf2009189.html#a5528898
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 -