X-Spam-Check-By:	sourceware.org
Message-ID:	<44D13F14.2060004@x-ray.at>
Date:	Thu, 03 Aug 2006 02:11:00 +0200
From:	Reini Urban <rurban AT x-ray DOT at>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; de-AT; rv:1.8.0.5) Gecko/20060721 SeaMonkey/1.0.3
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: cygwin copy problems usb 2.0
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> <5528898 DOT post AT talk DOT nabble DOT com> <20060727211107 DOT GB4348 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT de> <20060727220054 DOT GC6653 AT trixie DOT casa DOT cgf DOT cx>
In-Reply-To:	<20060727220054.GC6653@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
X-IsSubscribed:	yes
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
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

Christopher Faylor schrieb:
> On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 11:11:07PM +0200, Corinna Vinschen wrote:
>> On Jul 27 13:48, aldana wrote:
>>> 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...
>> Right, how did you know?  The reason is that cp is a portable
>> implementation using simple reads and writes to perform the copy.
>> There's no such thing as a CopyFile routine on POSIX systems.
> 
> A few weeks ago there was a guy in libc-alpha mailing list complaining
> that glibc's API wasn't as rich and powerful as what is found on Windows.
> 
> As far as I know he's still alive.

Well, this brave guy has a point. :)

I'm really seeing the non-optimized cygwin cp behaviour causing bad 
reputation, which could be easily patched and maybe even accepted 
upstream. Who knows. Eric what do think? Would it be worthful to think 
about?

My USB transfers are also way to slow, because we are copying our hourly 
radio shows (80 MB) onto the stick every week. Everyone is angry. Linux 
USB drivers are very unstable, so windows has a good reputation there.

BTW: Windows Explorer is even faster than Total Commander. We tested it.
-- 
Reini

--
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 -