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@gmx.de>
To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Subject: Re: cygwin copy problems usb 2.0
In-Reply-To: <20060727201931.GD3409@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Nabble-Sender: aldana@gmx.de
X-Nabble-From: aldana <aldana@gmx.de>
References: <5519828.post@talk.nabble.com> <5528112.post@talk.nabble.com> <44C91F4A.8050404@cygwin.com> <20060727201931.GD3409@trixie.casa.cgf.cx>
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:cygwin-unsubscribe-archive-cygwin=delorie.com@cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe@cygwin.com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help@cygwin.com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.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/