Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: cygwin@cygwin.com From: Andrew DeFaria Subject: Re: ftp way quicker than cp? Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 12:51:30 -0700 Lines: 23 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: Igor Pechtchanski wrote: > You are not really measuring the time needed for "cp". You are > measuring the overhead of SMB share access. Using ftp bypasses all > this mechanism completely, and sends files directly over the network. > Try comparing the time it takes to copy the file in Windows Explorer > to the SMB share and to an FTP location -- you'll probably see the > same results. I was aware that there is SMB overhead - just didn't think it would be that great! (BTW: How exactly do you get the time command working in conjuntion with a "copy the file in the Windows Explorer"! :-) ) > IOW, this is not really Cygwin-related. This is true if such large overhead is only attributable to SMB. === I know you may think you know what I said, but I'm not sure that you realize that what you think I said is not really what I meant. -- 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/