X-Recipient:	archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
DomainKey-Signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=default; b=C1u6oXW0dlTsbQS8
	E0fStMwzhRU+x2sNuNTXyVcc6O+pr3yap9fahEoKb2EmcoPFMSvVFiCO2r3daHZ2
	zr5fAo8fgk3SOpesdYotxzGF2prfa+HGbsTBdqBfoh/w2G7FVDL66rqDZJWqg7BN
	rqi/V9EvIf+wAU/r1C4PbMk1Flk=
DKIM-Signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=sourceware.org; h=list-id
	:list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-archive:list-post
	:list-help:sender:message-id:date:from:reply-to:mime-version:to
	:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type
	:content-transfer-encoding; s=default; bh=3Q4BlxKsNdLwW8ljbZEL3e
	mI5iM=; b=foE1UwN9TvNijEuD62XAJjbDcGqrddFnt3P5rXiDCdsZOX/u/k0e2F
	nLJWk6mT61wh8BlcyPNFuk53KI35dwvBqAq5p9JNPxYZmVSMF0D2YD9ti3JxizLN
	d+CtvRtnJo5hE6Xn99N5UvS1PSvF+6pj53kWYKO/NN++ILstaPl9Q=
Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id:	<cygwin.cygwin.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
Authentication-Results:	sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found:	No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status:	No, score=-2.7 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.3.2
X-HELO:	vms173005pub.verizon.net
Message-id:	<52432BDB.7080809@cygwin.com>
Date:	Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:30:51 -0400
From:	"Larry Hall (Cygwin)" <reply-to-list-only-lh AT cygwin DOT com>
Reply-to:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130801 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: cp vs copy performance over local network
References:	<CAJyLC6sbpLsGXpt2U8u1QOCw+7AhYuo73Q8e2V_K=fu7ujaKkg AT mail DOT gmail DOT com>
In-reply-to:	<CAJyLC6sbpLsGXpt2U8u1QOCw+7AhYuo73Q8e2V_K=fu7ujaKkg@mail.gmail.com>

On 9/25/2013 1:17 PM, Wm. David Bentlage wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> I've often noticed that there's a big difference in the performance
> between Cygwin cp and Windows copy over the local network -- cp
> usually takes twice as long for the same operation.  Here's an
> example:
>
> muser AT A4826995 /c/Users/Muser
> $ time cmd /c copy \\\\server\\w\\cygwin.zip .
>          1 file(s) copied.
>
> real    0m7.344s
> user    0m0.015s
> sys     0m0.046s
>
> muser AT A4826995 /c/Users/Muser
> $ time cp \\\\server\\w\\cygwin.zip .
>
> real    0m18.559s
> user    0m0.046s
> sys     0m2.432s
>
> muser AT A4826995 /c/Users/Muser
> $ uname -a
> CYGWIN_NT-6.1-WOW64 A4826995 1.7.17(0.262/5/3) 2012-10-19 14:39 i686 Cygwin
>
> muser AT A4826995 /c/Users/Muser
> $ ls -lh cygwin.zip
> -rw-r--r-- 1 muser Users 513M Sep 25 11:47 cygwin.zip
>
> Why is this?  Is there something I can do to increase the performance of cp?

Use '-l'. ;-)

There's overhead to handle POSIX permissions, etc.  Perhaps copying to a
mount point with 'noacl' would help.  Otherwise, you can see all the things
that are happening by stracing 'cp'.  It may point you to some hints/ideas.

-- 
Larry

_____________________________________________________________________

A: Yes.
 > Q: Are you sure?
 >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
 >>> Q: Why is top posting annoying in email?

--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple

- Raw text -